United States v. Pentax Corp.
United States Court of International Trade
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RESTANI, Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, pursuant to USCIT R. 56. Defendants argue that they are not liable for civil penalties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (1988) 1 for mis-marking of goods because the mismarking did not affect the amount of duties owed or the admissibility of the goods, as required by regulatory materiality standards.
Background
The facts of this matter are set forth in Pentax Corp. v. Robison, 20 CIT 486, 924 F.Supp. 193 (1996), rev’d, 125 F.3d 1457 (Fed.Cir.1997), amended, 135 F.3d 760 (1998). Familiarity with those…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. HolmquistCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Utex International Inc., and Sentry Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- United States v. Rockwell International Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 1986
- United States v. An Antique Platter of GoldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Ltd.United States Court of International Trade · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Rockwell Automation Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2006
- United States v. Active Frontier International, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2012
- United States v. Tri-State Hospital Supply Corp.United States Court of International Trade · 1999
- Lincoln General Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2005