Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States (1999)
Facts
The case Carl Zeiss, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Zeiss), plaintiff v. United States, defendant was filled in the United States Court of International Trade on the 23 rd of June 1998. The matter before the court was microscopes and parts or accessories thereof that Zeiss had imported from Germany in 1994 and 1995 (Watson, 1999). The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned items had been wrongly classified by the Customs depart. The claim was that the microscopes ought to have been classified under Heading 9018 which caters for “instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences ...," instead of under Heading 9011 which caters for “compound optical microscopes ... stereoscopic microscopes: Provided with a means for photographing the image” in which they were classified.
Issue
Should the imported microscopes should be classified as compound optical microscopes under Heading 9011 or as instruments used in surgery under Heading 9018?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Decision
The court ruled that customs correctly classified the imported merchandise under Heading 9011 and that the plaintiff’s plea be dismissed.
Reasoning
The decision of the court was arrived at upon reasoning which led to a conclusion that there were no material issues or facts identifiable in the case. In essence, the court reasoned that the microscopes in question are essentially stereoscopic optical microscopes which makes their classification into the Heading 9011 justifiable. Further, the court affirms that it is also not arguable that the microscopes and parts thereof are principally made use of in surgery and medical practice which would justify their classification under Heading 9018 (Watson, 1999). However, the court reasoned that the tariff descriptions of the microscopes as belonging to the field of microscopes is more distinctive than a general description of general instruments used for medical or surgical procedures.
Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp. v. United States
Facts
The foreign trade zones established under the Foreign Trade Zones Act is an enclosed, isolated and policed near a port of entry which operates as a public utility enabling traders to load, unload, handle, store, manipulate, manufacture, exhibit and reship goods. In addition to that, operating within the foreign trade zones offered an advantage to the traders as it lessened liability to duties and helped them avoid quota problems. In the case, Customs had excised a $3,000,000 in duties for Nissan owing to the Customs interpretation that the merchandise that Nissan had imported was to be used exclusively in the production of other goods and consequently does not fall in the category of goods in the foreign trade zones (DiCarlo, 1988). Nissan was therefore seeking reliquidation of entries on machinery and for Customs to refund the duties that had been excised.
Issue
The legal issue before the court was to determine whether machinery imported to produce merchandise in a foreign trade zone should be subject to customs duty or not?
Decision
The court reviewed the Foreign Trade Zones Act as well as other relevant legislation and denied the plaintiff’s motion stating that machinery and related capital equipment imported to produce merchandise in a foreign trade zone subzone are subject to duty.
Reasoning
The reasoning of the court was that the merchandise referred to in the case was actively or intended to be used in the manufacture of other cars and thus do not fit within the description of provided under the Foreign Trade Zones Act (DiCarlo, 1988). The act provides that the imported items should only be stored, sold, exhibited, broken up, repacked, assembled, distributed, sorted, graded, cleaned, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise, or otherwise manipulated or manufactured to be exported, destroyed, or sent into the Customs territory of the United States, which leads to a logical conclusion of denying the plaintiff’s motion.
U.S. v. Mandel (1990)
Facts
In 1987, Arnold and Rona Mandel were arrested and charged for illegal exportation of commodities listed in the Commodity Control List (CCL) without a proper license. This was in violation of the Export Administration Act of 1979.
Issue
The legal issue before the court was does a criminal defendant charged with exporting items on the CCL in violation of the EAA of 1979 is entitled to discovery of Department of Commerce records relied on by the Secretary in promulgating commodity control categories within which the exported items are listed?
Decision
The court arrived to the decision that the discovery was appropriate because the defendant has the right to challenge the criteria that led to the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to place certain items on the CCL.
Reasoning
The reasoning of the court that it was duly the right of the defendant in a criminal court to obtain discovery of items “which are within the possession, custody, or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense” as provided for by Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C) (Karlton, 1990). Further, the rule allows for discovery that would be relevant to a defendant in the development of a possible defense.
References
DiCarlo, D. (1988) Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., USA v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988) | Court Listener Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2357262/nissan-motor-mfg-corp-usa-v-united-states/
Karlton, L. (1988) United States v. Mandel, 696 F. Supp. 505 (E.D. Cal. 1988) District Court, E.D. California | Court Listener Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1421904/united-states-v-mandel/
Watson, J. (1999) Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998) | Court Listener Retrieved from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2460611/carl-zeiss-inc-v-united-states/
