Micro Systems Engineering, Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 98
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Micro Systems Engineering imported 24 entries (subsequently severed from others) of pacemaker components (substrates, coils, diodes, integrated circuits) between June 2011 and Feb 2012.
- U.S. Customs classified and liquidated those entries under various HTSUS provisions; Plaintiff challenged classification as incorrect.
- Plaintiff argued the parts are specially designed/adapted for pacemakers and qualify for duty-free treatment under the Nairobi Protocol implemented at HTSUS subheading 9817.00.96.
- The government agreed that the specified components are classifiable under HTSUS 9817.00.96 and thus duty-free and exempt from merchandise processing fees for the entries at issue.
- Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings under USCIT Rule 12(c), asserting no material facts were disputed and the government’s admissions entitled Plaintiff to judgment.
- The Court found no triable factual disputes, granted judgment for Plaintiff, ordered reliquidation, refunds (with interest), and listed the specific entries to be refunded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imported substrates, coils, diodes, and ICs qualify for Nairobi Protocol treatment (HTSUS 9817.00.96) | Components are specially designed/adapted for pacemakers and thus fall under Nairobi Protocol duty-free classification | Agreed that the listed components in the remaining entries are classifiable under HTSUS 9817.00.96 | Court held the components are classifiable under HTSUS 9817.00.96 and entitled to duty-free treatment and exemption from merchandise processing fees |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings is appropriate under USCIT Rule 12(c) | No material facts in dispute; government admissions make judgment proper as a matter of law | Government conceded classification for the listed components, supporting judgment on the pleadings | Court granted judgment on the pleadings because pleadings raised no triable issues of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (D. Del. 2005) (discussing Rule 12(c) timing and appropriateness)
- New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1989) (authority cited for judgment on the pleadings standard)
- Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (appeal affirmation referenced)