Witex U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

683 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1767, 33 C.I.T. 1767, 31 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2439, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 145
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedDecember 15, 2009
DocketConsol. 98-00360
StatusPublished

This text of 683 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Witex U.S.A., Inc. 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
Witex U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1767, 33 C.I.T. 1767, 31 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2439, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 145 (cit 2009).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

DONALD C. POGUE, Judge.

On September 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate following its decision in Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 333 Fed.Appx. 569 (Fed.Cir.2009), which, in turn, followed its decision in the companion case Faus Group, Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2009). In Witex and Fans, the Court of Appeals reversed this court’s decision in Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 1907, 353 F.Supp.2d 1310 (2004) — where this court sustained U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of Plaintiffs laminated flooring panels — and directed that summary judgment be issued in favor of Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals’ decision and mandate settle questions of law that are outcome determinative for the case herein.

THEREFORE, in accordance with the Court of Appeals’ decision and mandate, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Customs’ classification and liquidation of Plaintiffs subject merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 4411.19.40 (2001) is not correct; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the subject merchandise are properly dutiable under HTSUS subheading 4418.90.40, as claimed by Plaintiff; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment be, and hereby is, entered for Plaintiff, that the subject entries be re-liquidated accordingly at the applicable rates of duty, and that excess *1317 duty be refunded with interest thereon provided by law. as

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

Related

Faus Group, Inc. v. United States
581 F.3d 1369 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
353 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (Court of International Trade, 2004)
Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States
333 F. App'x 569 (Federal Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1767, 33 C.I.T. 1767, 31 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2439, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witex-usa-inc-v-united-states-cit-2009.