Legal Aspects of Nissan Motor
9 Pages2269 Words163 Views
Added on 2020-05-28
Legal Aspects of Nissan Motor
Added on 2020-05-28
ShareRelated Documents
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnLegal AspectsNissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. UnitedStates(Student Details: )
Legal AspectsTable of ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................3Background of the case....................................................................................................................3Arguments of Defendant..................................................................................................................4Court’s Decision..............................................................................................................................6Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7References........................................................................................................................................8Page 2
Legal AspectsIntroduction The case of Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. United States 693 FSupp 1183 (1988) saw anumber of cross motions being made for summary judgment. This summary judgement had beenbased on Rule of United States Court of International Trade, particularly its rule 56. The mainissue raised here was regarding the duty being imposed on the machinery importation in foreigntrade subzone for production of merchandise (Court Listener, 2018). Nissan MotorManufacturing Corporation U.S.A. (Nissan) was the plaintiff, who had moved to the court forthis judgement on the basis that United States Customs Service (USCS) had to re-liquidate theproduction machinery entries and relevant capital requirements; along with for getting the dutiesrefunded which were above $3,000,000. The defendant, United States, applied before the courtfor assessing the duty (August, Mayer and Bixby, 2012). This discussion presents a summary ofthis case, where the arguments put forth by the defendant have been covered. Background of the caseUnder the US Foreign Trade Zones Act, the relevant authority was provided to foreign tradezone’s establishment, in which the merchandise could be imported duty free for the purpose ofselling. This included distribution, sorting, grading, mixing, cleaning, storing, selling, breakingup, assembling, mixing of foreign merchandise with mixing, and assumption, or any other sort ofmanipulation save for the ones provided herewith (Enforcement, 2018). A foreign trade zone wasformed in Smyrna, Tennessee, for Nissan. Nissan imported machinery worth $116 million for itsuse for manufacturing the cars at this plant. US Customs Service assessed over $3,000,000 as theimport duties of machinery. Nissan paid this tax under protest and challenged the validity of thisPage 3
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Nissan Motor v. USAlg...
|13
|2740
|44
Nissan Motor v. USA.lg...
|7
|431
|95