- 63 - 3. Summary of Conclusions As we have stated supra (B.4.a.i. Place of Manufacture), we view the parties’ stipulations differently than respondent. In the relevant stipulations--executed and filed 9 days after respondent completed the Alvarado Declaration that respondent submitted in opposition to petitioners’ summary judgment motion-- the parties have agreed that “the video games at issue” were manufactured in Puerto Rico. This precludes respondent from contending that, to some extent, the video games that are relevant in the instant cases were manufactured in the Dominican Republic or any place else other than Puerto Rico. Thus, the only predicate of respondent’s only challenge to EAPR’s satisfaction of the first prong drops out, and petitioners are entitled to partial summary judgment that EAPR satisfied the first prong. This leaves the second prong as the only bone of contention on this issue, whether EAPR satisfies the requirement that the video games were “manufactured or produced” in Puerto Rico “by” EAPR “within the meaning of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 954.” Our examination of (1) section 936(h)(5)(B)(ii) and the legislative history of that provision’s enactment in 1982, and (2) section 954(d)(1)(A) and the legislative history of that provision’s enactment in 1962, convinces us that there is not an absolute requirement that only the activities actually performedPage: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011