Remember the Irwin Tools Case? That case considered whether certain locking pliers were properly classified as wrenches or as either pliers or clamps. The Court of International Trade held that the plaintiff had overcome the presumption that Customs correctly classified the pliers as wrenches. But, because Irwin had not moved for summary judgment, the Court could not give a final classification. Subsequently, Irwin moved for summary judgment and the government moved for reconsideration of the original decision. If you have not read my original post on this case, please do so.
The CIT has now handed Irwin a complete victory. The gist of the prior ruling is that a wrench has a head that fits snugly over or around the head of a fastener and a single handle that can be turned to apply torque. Pliers, on the other hand, have two handles and two jaws that pivot and must be squeezed to grasp an object. A clamp has a frame of some kind and two opposing surfaces that can be adjusted by a screw, lever, or similar device to hold an object firmly in place.
A motion to reconsider a prior judgment is directed to the discretion of the Court. The Court will grant a motion to reconsider when it finds that justice requires it to do so. Factors that may indicate justice requires reconsideration include a significant change in the controlling law or reason to believe that the court patently misunderstood the issues presented. A simple disagreement with the outcome will not do it. That was the case here and the judge denied the motion.
So where do we classify locking pliers? No surprisingly, as pliers. All of the locking pliers have two handles and two jaws that pivot relative to one another. This allows the user to squeeze the handles to close the jaws around an object to manipulate it.
The Court also found that the evidence before it did not establish that the locking pliers were classifiable as clamps. Rather than be tightened with a screw, lever or thumb nut, the locking pliers are closed by squeezing the handles. Further, the configuration of the two handles and a pivot is distinct from clamps.
Reading somewhat between the lines and possibly due to my own involvement with this issue, it strikes me that the government’s main argument was that this issue had already been decided. The CIT addressed this issue in 1983 in a case called Associated Consumers v. UnitedStates, 5 CIT 148, 565 F. Supp. 1044. Associated Consumers was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a non-precedential decision without an opinion. Of course, the 1983 case was under the old Tariff Schedule of the United States. Furthermore, the decision of one CIT judge is not binding on another judge subsequently looking at the issue. The Court, after reviewing the physical nature of the various tools at issue and the standard definitions of pliers determined that these locking pliers are properly classified as pliers.
There is a bit of side issue in this case about use. Does the word “wrench” suggest a particular use, such as turning a nut or bolt? Does the word “clamp” imply a usage? Maybe. But, that was all addressed in the prior Irwin decision and the Court saw no reason to revisit it now.
Anyone curious about all the bankruptcy issues floating around? I'm on it. I'll try to get to that this week.
Popular posts from this blog
The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc. There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud. Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it. Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount. Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme. But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism? It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly. It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000. Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
The Court of International Trade has issued the much anticipated (at least by me) decision on the merits in Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States . It's a bit of a roller coaster ride. The plaintiff clearly hits some bumps along the way, but there is a thrilling conclusion. So, buckle up. The case is about the country of origin of five models of uninterruptible power suppliers ("UPS") and one surge protector. The UPS is essentially a glorified backup battery for computers and other devices. In the event of a power failure, the UPS kicks in to power the device and may assist in a "graceful shutdown." Modern UPS include printed circuit board assemblies that monitor the battery to ensure it is fully charged, monitor the available supply of electricity, switch to the battery when needed, provide status reports and other functions. All of that takes some firmware stored in chips on the boards. The surge protector is a simpler, but still electronic device, t
In my last post , we covered the mechanical aspects of evasion investigations conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These are cases CBP may initiate on its own, but which seem to more usually be initiated following an allegation by a domestic producer that an importer has evaded the payment of antidumping duties, countervailing duties, or both. The most common means of evasion is transshipping a product subject to an AD or CV duty order through a country not subject to the order and misidentifying the country of origin. In this post, I want to run through some of the concerns that have been expressed by importers (and their lawyers) dealing with EAPA cases. You'll see that these cases require a whole new approach to customs enforcement. Because judicial review in EAPA is limited to facts in the agency record with a very deferential standard of review, these look a lot more like antidumping and countervailing duty cases minus the safeguard of complete information disclos