Apple Inc. v. United States

Case: 19-1869 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/02/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2019-1869 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00239-CRK, Judge Claire R. Kelly. ______________________ Decided: July 2, 2020 ______________________ CATHERINE EMILY STETSON, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by CRAIG A. LEWIS, MICHAEL WEST; JAMES EDWARD RANSDELL, IV, DAVID PHILLIPS SANDERS, Cassidy Levy Kent USA LLP, Washington, DC. BEVERLY A. FARRELL, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New York, NY, for defend- ant-appellee. Also represented by JUSTIN REINHART MILLER; JOSEPH H. HUNT, JEANNE DAVIDSON, Washington, DC; PAULA S. SMITH, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Case: 19-1869 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 07/02/2020 2 APPLE INC. v. UNITED STATES United States Department of Homeland Security, New York, NY. ______________________ Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. WALLACH, Circuit Judge. Appellant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed suit against Appel- lee United States (“the Government”) in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of Apple’s iPad 2 Smart Cover (“Smart Cover”), model number MC939LL/A, under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) Subheading 6307.90.98. 1 Apple and the Government filed cross-motions for summary judg- ment, with Apple contending that its subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 8473.30.51, duty free, and the Government contending that Apple’s subject merchandise is properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 3926.90.99, at a duty rate of 5.3 per- cent ad valorem. The CIT denied Apple’s Cross-Motion and granted the Government’s, concluding, inter alia, that the subject merchandise was properly classified under HTSUS Subheading 3926.90.99. Apple Inc. v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1305 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019); see J.A. 1 (Judg- ment). Apple appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm. 1 “All citations to the HTSUS refer to the 20[11] ver- sion, as determined by the date of importation of the mer- chandise.” LeMans Corp. v. United States, 660 F.3d 1311, 1314 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Case: 19-1869 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 07/02/2020 APPLE INC. v. UNITED STATES 3 BACKGROUND I. The Subject Merchandise This appeal involves a single entry of merchandise, made by Apple “at the port of San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California on January 28, 2011.” Apple, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1295 (citation omitted). 2 The en- try consisted of two models of the Smart Cover, which “dif- fer[ed] as to their outer layer,” with one made of leather and the other “composed of plastic.” Id. (citation omitted). Only the classification of the Smart Cover with plastic outer layer, model number MC939LL/A, remains at issue on appeal. See Appellant’s Br. 4; Appellee’s Br. 2. 3 The Smart Cover is a “thin, durable cover” designed for exclusive use with the iPad 2. J.A. 164; see J.A. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals