in response to the notice. See "Withdrawal of Proposed Modification or Revocation of Ruling Letters Relating to Tariff Classification of Bell-Shaped and Similarly Shaped Glassware,” 32 Customs Bulletin at 13 (July 15, 1998); Pl.’s Reply Brief at 21. 11 . The parties bicker over the extent to which Customs’ classifications of the merchandise here at issue are entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness. See Pl.’s Brief at 6, 7-8, 9-10; Def.’s Brief at 5-6, 7-8, 9, 13-14; 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1). What both parties generally fail to recognize is that the presumption of correctness is irrelevant at the summary judgment stage, where—by definition—there is assertedly no dispute as to any material fact. See, e.g., Goodman Mfg., L.P. v. United States, 69 F.3d 505, 508 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see generally Universal Elec., Inc. v. United
holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness