DOJ Defends Expert Witness' Testimony in Customs Spat Over Electrical Conduit
The U.S. defended its expert witness in a customs classification dispute from a motion to remove the witness, Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos, in a May 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to give his opinion on a key question in the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials -- and that his testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving this key factual dispute in the matter at hand (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The plaintiff, importer Shamrock Building Materials, moved in April to toss Meliopoulos' testimony, arguing that he is "woefully incompetent" (see 2204110063). The importer said that to test the question of whether the tubing is lined with insulating materials, the lining's chemical composition must be established, and since Meliopoulos is no chemical engineer, the court should not use his testimony.
DOJ countered that the chemical composition of the interior coating is "not the critical inquiry before the Court" and that Shamrock made this assertion without factual basis or legal analysis. Rather, Meliopoulos' testimony, based on his history in the electrical industry, will be most useful, the U.S. argued.
The brief said that "through his knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education," Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to serve as an expert witness. While not a chemical engineer, he has a PhD degree in electrical engineering and is currently a professor at Georgia Tech on this subject. "Thus, he is qualified to conduct electrical tests upon the interior coating of the electrical conduit and to advise the Court as to whether it insulates against electricity," the brief said.
Shamrock argued that Meliopoulos is unqualified to give testimony over his personal understanding of the meaning of the term "insulating," as it is used in the electrical industry. The U.S. said that the witness will describe his personal understanding of the term in his testimony, leading the court to have a greater understanding of the term based on Meliopoulos' experience in the electrical industry.
The U.S. further argued that the testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving a key factual dispute at issue in the case. "Here, Dr. Meliopoulos’s testimony regarding the electrical testing he performed on the interior coating of the electrical conduit, and the electrical insulation it fails to provides, is admissible because it is relevant to plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint," the brief said. "... Because plaintiff claims in the complaint the interior coating of the electrical conduit is electrically insulating, Dr. Meliopoulos’s testimony regarding his testing and analysis, which determined that the interior coating does not provide electrical insulation, is relevant and will assist the fact finder in resolving this dispute."