Circuit Board Assembly Importer Fights Dismissals in CIT Customs Cases

Printed circuit board assembly importer Triumph Engine Control Systems moved to overturn the dismissal of four of its cases issued by the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 9 filing. Claiming that it clears the standard for reversing dismissals due to lack of prosecution set in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the importer requested an extension of the time to remain on the Customs Case Management Calendar (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. U.S., CIT #19-00108, #19-00109, #19-00110, #19-00130).

Triumph filed four challenges in CIT over the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of its printed circuit board assemblies. CBP thought they belonged under HTS subheading 8538, while the importer pushed for subheading 9032. All four cases were dismissed for lack of prosecution. CIT may relieve a party from a final judgment due to "excusable neglect." Per the Pioneer decision, there are four factors for finding when a late filing may constitute excusable neglect and they include: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,(3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith," the brief said.

Triumph meets this standard, it argued. The U.S. would not be prejudiced due to the delay since the plaintiff has not succeeded on the merits of the case, the length of delay was not great (a mere 18 days from the dismissal of three of the cases), there's a fair reason for the delay and Triumph acted in good faith when it contacted the U.S.'s counsel "shortly after the dismissal notices," the importer said, checking off each Pioneer standard. The delay was due to "internal transition of Plaintiff counsel, inadvertent oversight of the deadline, and a misunderstanding that cases had been suspended under a designated test case pursuant to CIT Rule 83," Triumph explained.