"General Note 13 permits duty free treatment of certain pharmaceutical products[.]" Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It provides that "[w]henever" an HTSUS heading or subheading has the "symbol 'K' in parentheses" in the "'Special' [duty rate] subcolumn," "any product (by whatever name known) classifiable in such provision which is the product of a country eligible for tariff treatment . . . shall be entered free of duty, provided that such product is included in the [P]harmaceutical [A]ppendix."
"General Note 13 permits duty free treatment of certain pharmaceutical products[.]" Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States , 476 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It provides that "[w]henever" an HTSUS heading or subheading has the "symbol ‘K’ in parentheses" in the " ‘Special’ [duty rate] subcolumn," "any product (by whatever name known) classifiable in such provision which is the product of a country eligible for tariff treatment ... shall be entered free of duty, provided that such product is included in the [P]harmaceutical [A]ppendix."
Totes challenges the constitutionality of the provisions of the HTSUS itself, and Customs makes no decision in this respect other than to routinely apply the HTSUS categories to imported goods. See Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingJewelpak Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 1402, 1409-10, 950 F. Supp. 343, 350 (1996), aff'd, 297 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) ("Customs has no authority to alter or amend the duty rates of the tariff schedule because the duty rates are part of the tariff statute enacted by Congress"); Mitsubishi Elec. Am., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that Customs does not make antidumping "decisions" for section 1514(a) to apply, as Customs simply follows the Department of Commerce's instructions in assessing and collecting certain duties, and thus the court held it lacked section 1581(a) jurisdiction). This circuit's section 1514(a) case law generally exempts, from otherwise required administrative exhaustion, constitutional challenges to statutory provisions from which Customs has no discretion to deviate.
RCFC 12(c) provides: "After the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." An RCFC 12(c) motion "is designed to provide a means of disposing of cases when the material facts are not in dispute between the parties and a judgment on the merits can be achieved by focusing on the content of the competing pleadings . . . ." 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1367 (3d ed. 2004) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)) (footnote omitted); see also Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that judgment on the pleadings "is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the [movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (citing N.Z.
On appeal, "[w]e review a judgment on the pleadings from the Court of International Trade de novo. " Forest Lab'ys, Inc. v. United States , 476 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007). I
Thus, the only issue before us is whether Sigma–Tau's L–Tauro and GlycoCarn products are prima facie classifiable as vitamins under HTSUS heading 2936. If they are, that heading applies; if they are not, heading 2923 applies, as both sides agree that the products are prima facie classifiable as quaternary ammonium salts. Before the CIT, Sigma–Tau argued that even if classified as quaternary ammonium salts under HTSUS heading 2923, its L–Tauro and GlycoCarn products should nonetheless qualify for “K designation” and thereby be granted duty-free treatment because “carnitine ” is listed in the Pharmaceutical Appendix to the HTSUS. “General Note 13 [of the HTSUS] permits duty free treatment of certain pharmaceutical products if three requirements are met....” Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States , 476 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One requirement of General Note 13 is that “the merchandise is listed in the Pharmaceutical Appendix of the tariff schedule.”
A USCIT Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim. Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT 1401, 1402–03, 403 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1349 (2005), aff'd,476 F.3d 877 (Fed.Cir.2007). A plaintiff's factual allegations must be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when "there are no material facts in dispute and the [moving] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); see also Owen v. United States, 851 F.2d 1404, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining that courts must grant a motion for judgment on pleadings when "it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim[.]") (internal quotation omitted).
" A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted when "there are no material facts in dispute and the [moving] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted); Zhang v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 263, 267 (2009). "[A] motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only where it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.
The standard for a motion under Rule 12(c) is the same as under Rule 56: "Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the [moving] party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Forest Labs., Inc. v. United States, 476 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we may examine "the content of the competing pleadings, exhibits thereto, matters incorporated by reference in the pleadings, whatever is central or integral to the claim for relief or defense, and any facts of which the . . . court will take judicial notice."