Sigvaris, Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 20
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Sigvaris imported 105 entries (Sept 2008–Nov 2010) of graduated compression hosiery, arm-sleeves, and gauntlets and Customs liquidated them under various HTSUS subheadings with duties assessed.
- Sigvaris filed nine protests seeking duty-free treatment primarily under HTSUS 9817.00.96 (or alternatively under 6115.10.05 for certain hosiery); protests were denied and Sigvaris sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
- Protests and attached memoranda expressly listed specific product models and stated they contested hosiery in the 15–20 mmHg compression range (identifying Series 120, 145, 185 among others in the memoranda).
- The litigation and briefs later referenced other series (Series 180, 400, 500, 900 hosiery and Series 900 sleeves/gauntlets), but those series were not included in the detailed descriptions in the original protests or were omitted in discovery and opening briefing.
- The court questioned seu sponte whether it had § 1581(a) jurisdiction over claims for models not specifically protested and whether Sigvaris waived claims omitted from discovery and summary judgment briefing.
- Court dismissed, sua sponte: (1) claims as to Series 180, 400, 500, and 900 hosiery for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (because not protested), and (2) claims as to Series 900 arm-sleeves/gauntlets as waived (omitted in discovery and opening brief). Remaining claims: Series 120, 145, 185 hosiery and Series 500 arm-sleeves/gauntlets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court has § 1581(a) jurisdiction over classification of certain Series hosiery not specifically identified in protests | Sigvaris contended its protests and summons covered the listed series including Series 180, 400, 500, 900 | US argued series were not specifically protested so classification became final and unreviewable | Court held no jurisdiction for Series 180, 400, 500, 900 hosiery because protests did not specifically challenge those models |
| Whether claims involving hosiery classified under two duty-free headings (6115.10.05 vs 9817.00.96) present a justiciable Article III controversy | Sigvaris sought reclassification to 9817.00.96 (duty-free); argued relief warranted | US argued dispute between two duty-free headings is moot because same duty rate | Court held controversy is justiciable because 9817.00.96 affects merchandise processing fee exemptions (monetary harm alleged) |
| Whether Sigvaris waived claims as to Series 900 arm-sleeves and gauntlets by omitting them in discovery and opening brief | Sigvaris later asserted Series 900 were part of the action | US argued omission in depositions, interrogatory answers, and opening brief constituted waiver | Court held Sigvaris waived claims on Series 900 sleeves/gauntlets due to omission in discovery and failure to raise in opening brief |
| Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate here | Sigvaris argued dismissal is severe and should be sparingly applied | US relied on statutory protest-and-denial prerequisites for § 1581(a) jurisdiction | Court held statutory protest requirements are firm; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required where models were not protested |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (party invoking jurisdiction must adequately allege facts to establish it)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (burden of proof for jurisdictional allegations)
- Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Arctic Corner, Inc. v. United States, 845 F.2d 999 (Fed. Cir.) (court may raise jurisdictional questions sua sponte)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (judicial review precluded absent proper protest)
- Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdictional requirements are straightforward)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings must give fair notice of claims)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (discovery fills in facts beyond pleadings)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.) (arguments not raised in opening brief are waived)
- Novosteel S.A. v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir.) (failure to raise arguments in opening brief results in waiver)