Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States

424 F.3d 1244 (2005)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
424 F.3d 1244 (2005)

Facts

In 1995, Heartland By-Products, Inc. (Heartland) (plaintiff) obtained an advance ruling from the United States Customs Service (customs) (defendant) classifying prospective syrup imports under subheading 1702.90.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Four years later, customs revoked the ruling and classified the syrup imports under a different subheading subject to higher tariffs. Heartland filed a complaint in the Court of International Trade seeking pre-importation review of the revocation under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) and to enjoin customs from enforcing the revocation. Although the court ruled in favor of Heartland (Heartland I), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment on appeal. Further, although the appellate court’s decision did not specify on which date the new subheading would apply to Heartland’s imports, customs began liquidating Heartland’s entries under the new classification. Heartland filed a motion for entry of judgment before the Court of International Trade (Heartland III), once again invoking jurisdiction under § 1581(h), asking that the court issue an order stating the date upon which the new classification would apply to Heartland’s imports. Customs argued that the court lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(h) because that provision covered only prospective entries and not actual entries. Although the court disagreed with customs, it nonetheless declined to exercise its jurisdiction under § 1581(h). Years later, Heartland filed another complaint under § 1581(h) challenging customs’ retroactive imposition of the higher duty classification (Heartland IV). The court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction, stating that it had lost jurisdiction under § 1581(h) when it denied Heartland’s first motion for entry of judgment. Heartland appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Michel, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership