Court Opinion

ID: 9925456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 21:02:27.618068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.023401
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 24-

         UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 SGS SPORTS INC.,
                                                 Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
        Plaintiff,
                                                 Court No. 18-00128
 v.

 UNITED STATES,

        Defendant.

                             OPINION AND ORDER

[Granting the Parties’ stipulation of facts and joint motion for the entry of a
judgment.]

                                                            Dated: January, 2024

John M. Peterson and Patrick B. Klein, Neville Peterson, LLP, of New York, N.Y.,
argued for Plaintiff SGS Sports Inc.

Justin R. Miller, attorney-in-charge, and Monica P. Triana, Senior Trial Counsel,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New
York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With them on the motion were Brian M.
Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director.

      Choe-Groves, Judge: Before the Court is the Stipulation of Facts and Joint

Motion for the Entry of a Judgment filed by Plaintiff SGS Sports, Inc. (“Plaintiff”

or “SGS”) and Defendant United States. Stipulation Facts Joint Mot. Entry J., ECF

No. 119. At the request of the Parties, the Court bifurcated this case into two
Court No. 18-00128                                                            Page 2

phases. Order (Jan. 13, 2021), ECF No. 63. In Phase I, the Court determined that

the warehousing agreement between SGS and 147483 Canada, Inc. is a lease or

similar use agreement. SGS Sports Inc. v. United States, 47 CIT __, __, 620 F.

Supp. 3d 1365, 1380 (2023). Remaining for Phase II is the question of whether the

subject entries were eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.20

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). See id. at

1380–81.

      The Parties filed their Stipulation of Facts and Joint Motion for the Entry of

a Judgment informing the Court that the Parties have agreed to the following facts:

      1.     The imported merchandise that is the subject of this action was
             previously imported into the United States.
      2.     Plaintiff paid all applicable duties upon such previous
             importation.
      3.     The imported merchandise was not advanced in value or
             improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other
             means while abroad.
      4.     The imported merchandise was reimported by or for the account
             of the person who imported it into, and exported it from, the
             United States.

Stipulation Facts Joint Mot. Entry J. at 3. The Parties contend that these stipulated

facts resolve all factual issues remaining before the Court and request that judgment

be entered for Plaintiff. Id. at 3–5. Defendant United States asserts that its

agreement for the entry of a judgment is not intended to waive its ability to appeal

the Court’s determinations in Phase I of this proceeding. Id. at 1.
Court No. 18-00128                                                             Page 3

      In an action brought challenging the denial of a protest to the assessment of

duties by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Parties may file a stipulation for

judgment on agreed upon facts at any time. USCIT R. 58.1. The Court reviews

classification cases based on a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a).

This is a two-step process. First, the Court ascertains the proper meaning of the

terms in the tariff provision. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845

F.3d 1158, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Sigma-Tau HealthSci., Inc. v. United

States, 838 F.3d 1272, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Second, the Court determines

whether the subject merchandise falls within the parameters of the tariff provision.

See id. (citing Sigma-Tau HealthSci., Inc., 838 F.3d at 1276). The former is a

question of law and the latter is a question of fact. See id. The Court resolved the

first step of this analysis during Phase I of the proceedings, leaving only questions

of fact for Phase II. SGS Sports Inc., 47 CIT at __, 620 F. Supp. 3d at 1375–81.

      Importers must normally pay duties on goods that were imported into the

United States, exported to another country, and reimported back into the United

States. 19 C.F.R. § 141.2. HTSUS subheading 9801.00.20 provides an exception

to this rule for merchandise imported into the United States, exported outside of

the United States under a lease or similar use agreement, and then reimported into
Court No. 18-00128                                                              Page 4

the United States. HTSUS 9801.00.20. Customs grants the HTSUS 9801.00.20

exception when:

       the article for which free entry is claimed was duty paid on a previous
       importation . . ., is being reimported without having been advanced in
       value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other
       means, was exported from the United States under a lease or similar use
       agreement, and is being reimported by or for the account of the person
       who imported it into, and exported it from, the United States.

19 C.F.R. § 10.108. The Court previously determined that the subject entries were

“exported from the United States under a lease or similar use agreement.” SGS

Sports Inc., 47 CIT at __, 620 F. Supp. 3d at 1381. The Parties have stipulated to

the remaining requirements of HTSUS 9801.00.20. The Court determines,

therefore, that Plaintiff’s subject entries were entitled to duty-free treatment under

HTSUS 9801.00.20.

       Upon consideration of the Parties’ Stipulation of Facts and Joint Motion for

the Entry of a Judgment, and all other papers and proceedings in this action, it is

hereby,

       ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulation of Facts and Joint Motion for the

Entry of a Judgment, ECF No. 119, is granted; and it is further

       ORDERED that all pending motions in limine are deemed withdrawn; and it

is further
Court No. 18-00128                                                           Page 5

      ORDERED that the subject entries are classifiable under subheading

9801.00.20 of the Harmonized Trade Schedule of the United States and are entitled

to duty-free treatment; and it is further

      ORDERED that U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall reliquidate the

subject entries and pay any appropriate refunds, with any interest as provided by

law, in accordance with this opinion.

      Judgment shall issue for Plaintiff accordingly.

                                                          /s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
                                                        Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Dated: January , 2024
       New York, New York