Otter Products, LLC v. United States
The CIT denied Plaintiff’s motion to enforce and motion for reply. The CIT held that Plaintiff cannot use the Court’s 2015 classification judgment to compel reliquidation of entries associated with a separate prior disclosure that was not part of the summons for the 2015 case.
In 2015, the CIT issued an opinion holding that CBP erroneously classified entries of protective cases under HTSUS subheading 4202.99.00. The Court affirmed Plaintiff’s classification of the subject merchandise under HTSUS subheading 3926.90.99, subject to a lower duty rate of 5.3% and ordered the U.S. Government to reliquidate the subject entries covered by the protest that was identified in the Plaintiff’s summons and to refund all duties overpaid, plus interest.
In the present case, the Plaintiff argued that the Court should require the Defendants to re-open a 2013 prior disclosure and reliquidate the associated entries on the grounds that the Court’s 2015 judgment applies not only to the subject entries that were covered by the protest identified on Plaintiff’s summons, but also to all other entries of the same or similar merchandise. The Defendants argued that the prior disclosure and associated entries were not part of the subject protest listed on the 2015 summons and therefore the CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure entries. The Court agreed with the Defendants and held that the 2015 judgment only applied to the subject protest and associated subject entries listed in the summons.