- 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 performed
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011