Shah Bros Case Summary

Shah Bros. Inc. v United States No. 10-00205 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013)

Facts

Shah Bros is an importer of a smokeless tobacco product. The company imports a product called gutkha from India. The product was classified by the customs department as snuff. Shah Bros protested this classification and contended that the product should be classified as chewing tobacco. The product was subsequently reclassified by the customs department. The company had sought reclassification of a similar product in the past. The government had agreed to classify the earlier product as chewing tobacco as opposed to snuff. Despite the earlier reclassification, the government did not confess to the current judgement until 2013. After the concession by the government, Shah

In this case the government had agreed to reclassify the product as chewing tobacco rather than snuff. In this case the government had also agreed to refund Shah Bros any extra duty and tax it had paid together with interests that had accrued. In the meantime, Shah Bros had brought another action for improper classification of a similar product it had imported. The new product was similar to the gutkha and was also classified as snuff as opposed to chewing tobacco. In the later case, the government initially refused to reclassify the product. However, the government subsequently classified the product as chewing

The lack of a clear law for the classification of the product and the plaintiffs description of the product as ground were the government's reason for claiming reasonable justification. Although this might be correct, it is noteworthy that the customs department had dealt with a similar issue in the previous Shah Bros case. In the earlier case, the government had agreed to properly classify the gutkha as chewing tobacco. The government, however, refused to reclassify the product in the current case despite the product being similar to that in the earlier case. The governments refusal to classify the identical product in the same manner and for similar reasons did not satisfy the requirement of reasonable