McKesson Canada Corp. v. United States

365 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 2019 CIT 26
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedFebruary 28, 2019
DocketSlip Op. 19-26; Court 10-00151
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 365 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (McKesson Canada Corp. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKesson Canada Corp. v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 2019 CIT 26 (cit 2019).

Opinion

Restani, Judge:

This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment made by plaintiff McKesson Canada Corporation ("McKesson"), an importer of pharmaceutical equipment, and defendant United States ("the government"). See Mem. of *1313 McKesson Canada Corp. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 79 ("McKesson Br."); Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 90 ("Gov't Br."). McKesson argues that the merchandise is properly classified under heading 8422 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") 1 as a composite machine whose sole or principal function is packing, specifically, HTSUS 8422.40.91. See McKesson Br. at 3-14; Reply of McKesson in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. & Resp. in Opp. to Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 102 ("McKesson Resp."). The government, however, asserts that the United States Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") properly classified the subject merchandise under the residual basket subheading 8479.89, HTSUS, for "[m]achines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in [Chapter 84]; Other" and not under heading 8422. See Gov't Br. at 15-38; Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 111 ("Gov't Reply"). For the reasons stated below, McKesson's motion is granted and the government's cross-motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed. The subject merchandise is an "automated pharmacy system" referred to as a PACMED ("Pacmed") machine and described as "a gravity-fed unit dose ... or multi dose ... pill dispensing and packaging system" for use in hospitals and retail pharmacies. Statement of Facts of McKesson in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶¶ 1-3, Doc. No. 79-1 ("Pl.'s Stmt. of Facts"). 2 Its purpose is to "[p]romote compliance, patient safety and medication management" by ensuring that the appropriate amount of prescribed medication is packaged into a pouch and labeled with a patient's identifying information. Id. ¶¶ 13, 19, 24.

McKesson imports four Pacmed models. 3 Id. ¶ 15. The Pacmed is a composite machine, composed of a partially transparent pill canister compartment mounted on top of a packaging compartment, which are housed together in a large cabinet. Id. ¶¶ 4, 24. The unit features a touch screen that is used to input and receive data concerning the medication to be processed. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8. The upper compartment contains several canisters that are stocked by a user with a registered quantity of pills and features a bar code or electronic chip that allows the system to identify and monitor inventory. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. The lower compartment is loaded with reels of plastic packaging material and printer ribbons. Id. ¶ 7. A printer in the lower compartment prints the patient and prescription data, including a bar code, directly onto the packaging material. Id. ¶ 11. After a user initiates an order based on a patient's information, the canisters release the specified *1314 quantity of medication, verified by an electronic scale, onto the packaging material, which is then sealed into a pouch containing the pills. Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 12. The pouch can be retrieved by a health care worker through a slot at the bottom of the unit for delivery to patients. Id. ¶ 13. The Pacmed unit works alongside a digital scale, a barcode scanner, and a computer workstation running Microsoft Windows and Pacmed Core software. Id. ¶ 8.

Between July 2008 and November 2008, McKesson made entries of the Pacmed machines at the Port of Champlain, NY. Compl. ¶ 11, Doc. No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2011). Customs liquidated the entries between May 2009 and September 2009, classifying the merchandise under subheading 8479.89, which corresponded to a duty rate of 2.5% ad valorem . Id. ¶ 12. McKesson filed a protest and requested a ruling as to the proper classification of the merchandise. Id. ¶ 14. On September 29, 2009, Customs issued a letter ruling, asserting that the Pacmed should be classified under the residual basket category for "[m]achines and mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof: Other machines and mechanical appliances: Other ... Other ... Other" under subheading 8479.89.9899, HTSUS. Cust. Rul. NY N074022 (Sept. 29, 2009). In the ruling, Customs described the merchandise as a "composite machine" that includes "a labeling machine, a hopper, packaging and a dispensing machine." Id. But it argued that the packaging was "ancillary to the performance of the machine's dispensing function," excluding heading 8422. Customs reasoned, instead, that the merchandise was a "composite machine consisting of various processing modules which consecutively perform complementary separate functions ... described in different headings of Section XVI," which all "contribute to the principal function of the composite machine, i.e., the distribution of pharmaceuticals." Id. Accordingly, Customs denied McKesson's protest on November 12, 2009, and classified the merchandise under subheading 8479.89.98. Compl. ¶ 15. This action ensued.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction over the denial of a protest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) (2006). 4 The court grants summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." USCIT Rule 56(a). In tariff classification cases, "summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to the underlying factual issue of exactly what the merchandise is." Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States , 148 F.3d 1363 , 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court decides classifications de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (a)(1) ; Telebrands Corp. v. United States , 865 F.Supp.2d 1277 , 1279-80 (C.I.T. 2012).

DISCUSSION

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vecoplan, LLC v. United States
675 F. Supp. 3d 1263 (Court of International Trade, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
365 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 2019 CIT 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckesson-canada-corp-v-united-states-cit-2019.