Russ Berrie & Co. v. United States

329 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 2018 CIT 108
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedAugust 30, 2018
DocketSlip Op. 18-108; Court 93-00391
StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (Russ Berrie & Co. 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
Russ Berrie & Co. v. United States, 329 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 2018 CIT 108 (cit 2018).

Opinion

Stanceu, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Russ Berrie & Company, Inc. ("Russ Berrie & Co.") brought this action to challenge the tariff classifications by the United States Customs Service, predecessor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs"), of various articles it imported in 1992.

Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Concluding that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the court grants in part, and denies in part, each motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This action, which was commenced in 1993, has a long history and includes claims regarding the tariff classification of a large number of articles. See Summons (July 14, 1993), ECF No. 1; Compl. (Mar. 17, 2010), ECF No. 28. Over the course of the litigation, the parties have agreed to the disposition of plaintiff's claims as to certain articles. At the court's request, the parties consulted with the objective of identifying the articles for which classification remains in dispute. Plaintiff filed a submission on June 26, 2014 identifying those articles. See Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. at Sched. 1 (June 26, 2014), ECF No. 111-1. Plaintiff also identified articles as to which the parties have agreed to a settlement, id. at Sched. 3, ECF No. 111-3, and articles for which plaintiff states it will abandon its claims, id. at Sched. 2, ECF No. 111-2. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint on August 21, 2014. See First Am. Compl. (Aug. 21, 2014), ECF No. 117 ("Am. Compl."). The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for summary judgment.

A. The Merchandise Remaining in Dispute

Upon review of the parties' submissions, the court determines that the tariff classification of nine categories of merchandise remains in dispute: (1) various styles of "Trolls," which are articles made to depict mythical creatures; (2) "Goonie Goblins" finger puppets; (3) figures identified as "Haunting Horrors" that feature holographic faces, in three designs; (4) an article identified as "Bobbling Bones"; (5) a group of articles organized as a "Trick 'n Treat Fun Center" consisting of five types of articles, identified as "multiplying viewers," "puzzle watches," "squirt balls," "paint palettes," and "stencil sets"; (6) articles identified as "Christmas Hugs"; (7)

various porcelain and earthenware candleholders; (8) an "Etched Images Plaque"; and (9) four styles of "Baby Booties." See Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. at Sched. 1.

B. Entries, Liquidations, and Protests

The articles remaining at issue were entered from July 6, 1992 through October 26, 1992 in a number of entries through the ports of New York/Newark and San Francisco. See Summons; Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. at Sched. 1 (entry information for articles remaining at issue). Customs liquidated the entries between November 6, 1992 and February 19, 1993. See Summons; Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. at Sched. 1.

The articles remaining in dispute were classified by Customs upon liquidation under a number of different headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS") (1992). 1 See Am. Compl. ¶ 12(a)-(ppp) (declaring the classification by Customs); Answer to First Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (Oct. 20, 2014), ECF No. 122-1 ("Def.'s Am. Answer") (admitting as to the classification by Customs). The majority of these articles, including the various models of Trolls, were classified by Customs upon liquidation under heading 9503, HTSUS, which includes within its scope certain types of toys. Customs classified the candleholders under heading 9405, HTSUS, which includes "[l]amps and lighting fittings ... not elsewhere specified or included." Customs classified the Baby Booties under heading 6405, HTSUS ("Other footwear"). Customs classified the Etched Images Plaques under heading 3926, HTSUS ("Other articles of plastics ...") and the paint palettes under heading 3213, HTSUS ("Artists', students' or signboard painters' colors, modifying tints, amusement colors and the like, in tablets, tubes, jars, bottles, pans or in similar forms or packings"). Customs classified the squirt balls under heading 9505, HTSUS ("Festive ... or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke articles ...").

Between February 4, 1993 and April 1, 1993, Russ Berrie & Co. filed protests contesting the classification determinations Customs made upon liquidation. See Summons. In its protests, plaintiff claimed that the articles should be classified in certain subheadings under heading 9505, HTSUS ("Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke articles ..."). See id. ; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-21. Customs denied each of plaintiff's protests. See Summons; Am. Compl. ¶ 3.

C. Proceedings before the Court

Plaintiff filed its current motion for summary judgment and supporting brief in September 2014. See Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (Sept. 15, 2014), ECF No. 118-3 ("Pl.'s Mot."). On October 20, 2014, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, see Def.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and in Supp. of Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (Oct. 20, 2014), ECF No. 122 ("Def.'s Mot."), and on the same day filed its answer to plaintiff's amended complaint, Def.'s Am. Answer. On November 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion and in opposition to defendant's cross-motion. Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and in Further Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (Nov. 24, 2014), ECF No. 123 ("Pl.'s Reply"). On January 28, 2015, defendant filed its reply in support of its cross-motion and in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Def.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and Reply in Further Supp. of Def.'s Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. (Jan. 28, 2015), ECF. No. 131 ("Def.'s Reply").

On January 29, 2015, plaintiff requested the court's leave to respond to what plaintiff construed as a de facto motion, made in defendant's reply, to strike certain of plaintiff's evidentiary submissions. Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. (Jan. 29, 2015), ECF No. 132. Plaintiff filed its response to the de facto motion to strike on February 11, 2015. Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Strike the Mr. Berrie, Foster, and Lohwasser Affidavits as well as Russ Berrie Catalog Excerpts (Feb. 11, 2015), ECF No. 134.

At the request of the parties, and following conferences with the parties, the court entered orders staying this action to allow the parties to conduct settlement negotiations. Order (Feb. 17, 2017), ECF No. 138 (staying action for 90 days); Order (June 16, 2017), ECF No. 142 (extending stay). Following the expiration of the stay, the parties reported that they were unable to reach further settlement. Letter from Simon Gluck & Kane LLP to Ct. (July 19, 2017), ECF No. 143 (indicating that settlement of the action could not be reached and requesting that the court render a decision).

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

Related

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Brown v. Gardner
513 U.S. 115 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Degussa Corp. v. United States
508 F.3d 1044 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States
501 F.3d 1303 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States
733 F.2d 873 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Richards Medical Company v. The United States
910 F.2d 828 (Federal Circuit, 1990)
E.M. Chemicals v. The United States
920 F.2d 910 (Federal Circuit, 1990)
Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated v. United States
148 F.3d 1363 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Libas, Ltd. v. United States
193 F.3d 1361 (Federal Circuit, 1999)
Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States
195 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 1999)
Hartog Foods International, Inc. v. United States
291 F.3d 789 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Park B. Smith, Ltd., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States
347 F.3d 922 (Federal Circuit, 2003)
Russ Berrie & Company, Inc. v. United States
381 F.3d 1334 (Federal Circuit, 2004)
Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States
452 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Court of International Trade, 2006)
Russ Berrie & Co., Inc. v. United States
281 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Court of International Trade, 2003)
La Crosse Technology, Ltd. v. United States
723 F.3d 1353 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Hunt v. Cromartie
526 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F. Supp. 3d 1345, 2018 CIT 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russ-berrie-co-v-united-states-cit-2018.