US Challenges Importer's Alleged Improper Use of Request for Admission in Customs Suit

Importer Atlas Power is attempting to use a U.S. request to withdraw an admission of fact in a customs case to root out the government's "alternative classification" of the graphics processing units at issue, the U.S. said following Atlas' opposition to the U.S. motion (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

The suit covers four entries of graphics processing units classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.30.1180, which comes with 25% Section 301 duties. Atlas sought a Section 301 exclusion via post summary corrections, which were rejected since Atlas failed to show that the retroactive exclusion applied to its goods.

After the case was filed, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to withdraw its admission that the subject merchandise is made "of parts of or accessories to ADP machines classified under subheading 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS." In response, Atlas said that its goods entered under subheading 8473.30.1180 and CBP didn't "object to the classification during the administrative proceedings leading to this litigation" (see 2407010048).

Responding to Atlas' claims, the government said it objected because the request for admission concerned the classification of the goods, which is a pure "question of law." This objection alone is enough to set aside the request for admission, the U.S. said, adding that it doesn't moot its later denial of the request.

The U.S. said Atlas' response shows that the information the company was truly after wasn't properly subject to a request for admission. The importer admitted the reason it "propounded" the admission was to get a response from the U.S. disclosing its "alternative classification" theory or eliminate the issue from the case. "This dual purpose is inconsistent with the purpose behind requests for admission, which are 'intended to facilitate proof at trials by obviating the need to adduce testimony or documents as to matters that are really not in controversy,'" the brief said.

The importer knew that the government was looking into an alternative classification for the goods, yet the company didn't use a "follow-up interrogatory or a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to directly ask what alternative classification the Government thought might be appropriate."

The U.S. said it hasn't "reached a sufficient degree of certainty as to the correct classification," and is "using the expert discovery phase of this action to assist our analysis and determine how the specifications and functions of the subject merchandise, and any other merchandise for which it could be a part, affect its classification."