Court Opinion

ID: 9395046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 21:01:38.354784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.963143
License: Public Domain

Slip. Op. No. 23-76

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CYBER POWER SYSTEMS (USA) INC.,

                       Plaintiff,
                                                     Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
             v.

UNITED STATES,                                       Court No. 20-00124

                       Defendant.

                              MEMORANDUM and ORDER

                                                                    Dated: May 16, 2023

      John M. Peterson, Richard F. O’Neill, and Patrick B. Klein, Neville Peterson LLP,
of New York, N.Y., for Plaintiff Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.

       Luke Mathers, Trial Attorney, and Beverly A. Farrell, Senior Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were Brian M.
Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director,
and Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge. Of counsel was Yelena Slepak, Attorney, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, of New York, N.Y.

      Gordon, Judge: Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or

Retrial. See ECF No. 161 (“Pl.’s Motion”); see also Defendant’s Response in Opposition,

ECF No. 162 (“Def.’s Resp.”); Plaintiff’s Reply, ECF No. 163. Following trial, the court

held that Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof to (1) overcome the presumption

of correctness attached to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s original determination

that the subject four models of uninterruptible power supplies and one model of surge

voltage protectors were products of the People’s Republic of China, and (2) show, by

a preponderance of the evidence, that these subject devices were substantially
Court No. 21-00124                                                                   Page 2

transformed into products of the Republic of the Philippines. Cyber Power Sys. (USA)

Inc. v. United States, No. 20-00124, 47 CIT ___, ___, 2023 WL 2231894, at *1

(Feb. 27, 2023); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) (establishing statutory presumption

of correctness that imposes burden of proof on Plaintiff for contested factual issues).

       By its motion, Plaintiff requests reconsideration or retrial under USCIT Rule 59.

Pl.’s Motion 1. “[D]isposition of a Rule 59 motion is ‘within the sound discretion of the

court.’” Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States, 38 CIT ___, ___, 37 F. Supp.

3d 1354, 1359 (2014) (quoting USEC, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 229, 230, 138 F. Supp.

2d 1335, 1336 (2001)). “Such motions do not permit an unsuccessful party to re-litigate

a case, but are supposed ‘to address a fundamental or significant flaw in the original

proceeding.’” Id.; see also Ball v. Interoceanica Corp., 71 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1995).

The standard for determining whether the court’s prior decision should be disturbed is

“manifestly erroneous.” Since Hardware, 38 CIT at ___, 37 F. Supp. 3d at 1359 (quoting

USEC, 25 CIT at 230, 138 F. Supp. 2d at 1337). A judgment in a bench trial “should not

be set aside except for substantial reasons.” 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2804 (3d ed. 2023).

       Plaintiff’s motion fails to identify a manifest error or “a fundamental or significant

flaw” in the court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, Plaintiff’s

motion is premised on the incorrect assumption that the court found that Plaintiff

overcame the statutory presumption of correctness attached to Customs’ country of origin

determination as to five of the six models of subject merchandise. As the court stated

in its opinion, Plaintiff “failed in its burden of proof from the outset” with respect to its
Court No. 21-00124                                                               Page 3

preferred country of origin as to these five models. Cyber Power, 47 CIT at ___, 2023

WL 2231894, at *11 (emphasis added). Moreover, the court agrees with the reasoning

set forth in Defendant’s response, which explains in detail why Plaintiff’s motion fails.

See Def.’s Resp. 6–10.

      Accordingly, it is hereby

      ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration or Retrial pursuant to

USCIT Rule 59 is denied.

                                                              /s/ Leo M. Gordon
                                                           Judge Leo M. Gordon

Dated: May 16, 2023
       New York, New York