Importer Opposes Resolution in Its Favor, Seeks Decision on Merits

Glock opposed July 3 a U.S. motion for judgment in the gunmaker’s favor (see 2406280025), calling it “a blatant attempt by the Government to evade this Court’s ruling on the merits of Glock’s claim” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The government raised the motion in response to Glock’s attempt to compel discovery (see 2406240062). It said that, without admitting to any factual or legal issues, it was willing to refund Glock “given [that] the amount in controversy” was only $50 (see 2406280025).

Glock brought its 2023 case arguing CBP had erroneously included the gunmaker's royalty payments in its calculation of the relevant entry's value (see 2401170041).

“The government’s novel effort to moot this action at this venture through a self-serving voluntary cessation of its disputed valuation of merely one import entry -- indeed, one entry out of thousands that Glock makes each year -- is baseless as doing so would in no way secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues in dispute,” Glock said.

It also argued that the motion was untimely. Mootness, it claimed, is a question of subject matter jurisdiction, and motions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made prior to pleading, according to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notably, federal courts regularly rule otherwise, as under Rule 12(h)(3) a court must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “if the court determines at any time,” by motion or sua sponte, that it does.

Glock also argued that its claim could not be mooted by the government’s concession. One exception to the mootness doctrine applies when a wrong is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” the importer said, and it claimed that the government itself had admitted recurrence of the alleged error was likely. Another exists when it is not “reasonably likely” that repetition won’t happen again, Glock said, and a third when the public interest is still significant.

And, finally, dismissing Glock’s claim would “go against the very heart of fairness and justice to which litigants are entitled,” the gunmaker said. The U.S. is attempting to “cover up its failure to participate in discovery, dodge a decision on the merits, and force Glock to relitigate what should be a simple and straightforward issue every single time that Glock imports anything, whenever the Government feels like making Glock do so,” it said.

It claimed the Supreme Court found against such “deference to the whims of an agency” when it overruled Chevron (see 2407010026).