Erdle v. United States
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Carman, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to U.S. CIT R. 56(a), contending he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the United States Customs Service (Customs) improperly classified the merchandise at issue under subheading 7116.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and that Customs should have classified it under subheading 7101.10.30, HTSUS. Plaintiff also moves for attorney’s fees and costs. If summary judgment is denied plaintiff demands a jury trial. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment pursuant to U.S. CIT…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Ugg International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1993
- Washington International Insurance Co. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.