In Hatzlachh Supply Co., Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving customs duties on imported merchandise. The petitioner, Hatzlachh Supply Company, argued that they were overcharged for duties on their imports of plastic sheets from Taiwan and sought a refund from the U.S government. However, the Customs Service denied their claim stating that it was filed after the expiration of one-year statutory period provided under 19 U.S.C Section 1514(c)(3). The company then appealed to the Court of International Trade which upheld Custom's decision leading them to appeal in Supreme Court. The main issue before court was whether or not an importer could challenge liquidated damages assessed by Customs Service outside of this one-year limitation period if they had already paid these charges without protest within stipulated time frame. The Supreme Court ruled against Hatzlachh Supply Company affirming lower courts' decisions and held that any challenge to liquidation must be made within one year as per statute irrespective of whether duty has been paid or not during this time limit.

In the dissenting opinion for Hatzlachh Supply Co., Inc. v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff classification on imported merchandise was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of legislative intent and statutory language. The dissent emphasized that Congress intended for items like those in question - plastic sheets used as shelf liners - to be classified under a provision covering other plastics not elsewhere specified or included, which would result in lower duties than what was imposed by Customs officials and upheld by the Court of International Trade and Supreme Court majority. The justice further contended that this misinterpretation could lead to arbitrary classifications based on subjective determinations about an item’s primary use rather than its objective characteristics, thus undermining predictability in customs law.