Micro Systems Engineering, Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 97
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Micro Systems Engineering, Inc. imported pacemaker subassembly parts (substrates, cap sensors, coils, AOTs, TANT caps, and tabs) in 40 entries during Jan–Jun 2011; Customs classified and liquidated them under various HTSUS provisions.
- Plaintiff challenged Customs’ classifications, contending certain parts are duty-free under the Nairobi Protocol (implemented in HTSUS subheading 9817.00.96).
- Defendant conceded that substrates, cap sensors, coils, and (after producing specs) AOTs are classifiable under subheading 9817.00.96; both parties agree TANT caps and tabs are not.
- Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings under USCIT Rule 12(c), arguing no material facts were in dispute and that duty-free treatment is warranted for the qualifying parts.
- The Government disputed refund entitlement only as to TANT caps, tabs, and initially some AOTs, but later agreed AOTs qualify; remaining disagreement narrowed to the non-Nairobi items.
- The court found no triable factual issues and granted judgment for Plaintiff, ordering reliquidation and refunds (with interest) for entries containing substrates, cap sensors, coils, and AOTs, and dismissing claims as to TANT caps and tabs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imported parts are classifiable under Nairobi Protocol (HTSUS 9817.00.96) | Parts (substrates, cap sensors, coils, AOTs) are specially adapted for pacemakers and qualify for duty-free treatment | Agreed for substrates, cap sensors, coils; initially disputed some AOTs and excluded TANT caps/tabs | Court: substrates, cap sensors, coils, AOTs classifiable under 9817.00.96; TANT caps and tabs are not |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings is appropriate | No material facts in dispute; entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Conceded classification for most items; factual disputes limited to non-protested/non-complained items | Court: Rule 12(c) proper; entered judgment for Plaintiff on agreed items |
| Remedies — entitlement to reliquidation and refunds | Plaintiff seeks reliquidation and refunds for qualifying entries | No objection as to agreed qualifying items; opposed refunds for items not qualifying | Court ordered reliquidation and refunds with statutory interest for qualifying entries |
| Scope of the complaint/protests — whether certain items are before the court | Plaintiff limited claims to protested items and those in the complaint; seeks relief only for qualifying parts | Government noted some items (TANT caps, tabs) were not subject to protests or complaint | Court dismissed claims for items not before it (TANT caps, tabs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (D. Conn. 2005) (discussing Rule 12(c) timing and standard)
- New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (judgment on the pleadings appropriate when no material facts are disputed)
- Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1989) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)