Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/87/1301/610341/
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 20:32:50
Document Index: 797558712

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1520', '§ 1520', '§ 1520', '§ 1520', '§ 1520', '§ 1514']

Degussa Canada Ltd., Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 87 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1996) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Federal Circuit › 1996 › Degussa Canada Ltd., Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee
Degussa Canada Ltd., Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 87 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 87 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1996) June 24, 1996
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c) (1) (1988), the Customs Service (Customs) " [n]otwithstanding [that] a valid protest was not filed," may reliquidate a previous entry to correct a "mistake of fact ... in any ... liquidation." The question is whether the Court of International Trade correctly held that the district director's unawareness when he liquidated certain entries that the classification of other entries of the same merchandise by another district director was under review by Customs Service headquarters, was not such a "mistake of fact" that justified reliquidation. Degussa Canada Ltd. v. United States, 889 F. Supp. 1543, 1547 (C.I.T. 1995). We affirm.
A. This case involves the classification of automotive emission catalysts that the appellant, Degussa Canada Ltd. (Degussa), imported through the port of Detroit, Michigan between February and June 1990. The district director classified the merchandise as "other parts and accessories of motor vehicles" under subheading 8708.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and liquidated the entries in July and August 1990 at a duty of 3.1 percent. Degussa filed a protest in December 1990, which the district director denied. Degussa then filed suit challenging the classification in the Court of International Trade, which dismissed the complaint because the protest was not timely filed. Degussa Canada Ltd., 889 F. Supp. at 1545.
C. In December 1991, after the Commissioner's decision, Degussa filed with the district director in Detroit a petition for reliquidation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c) (1). It contended that the original liquidation had been the result of "a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence not amounting to an error in the construction of a law," in that if the district director had been aware of the pending review by the Commissioner, he would have deferred liquidation and, following the Commissioner's decision, would have classified the merchandise in accordance with that decision.
The district director denied reliquidation and, following denial of Degussa's protest of the denial, Degussa filed suit in the Court of International Trade. Degussa Canada Ltd., 889 F. Supp. at 1545. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Degussa's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because
Degussa Canada Ltd., 889 F. Supp. at 1547.
The only factual basis in Degussa's Court of International Trade complaint for its contention that the liquidation of the Detroit entries involved a "mistake of fact" was the assertion in paragraph 8 that " [t]he Detroit District Director was unaware at the times the Detroit entries were liquidated that the 416 AFR [Buffalo Protest and Application For Further Review No. 0901-0-00416] was pending before Customs Headquarters." Although the complaint also alleged that the Detroit district director's "lack of knowledge ... that the 416 AFR was pending before Customs Headquarters constituted a mistake of fact ... within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)" (Par. 9) and that "due to ... mistake of fact ... the Detroit entries were liquidated under subheading 8708.99, HTSUS" (Par. 18), those allegations track the language of the statute and therefore are conclusions of law that the court need not accept. See Fabrene, Inc. v. United States, 17 C.I.T. 911, 913 (1993).
Degussa contends that, in holding that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, the Court of International Trade failed to accept as true the complaint's factual allegations. To the contrary, the court concluded that, even accepting the factual allegations, Degussa had not stated a valid claim. As the court stated in its conclusion: "Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the alleged error in classification resulted from a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence by Customs as contemplated by 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c) (1)." Degussa Canada Ltd., 889 F. Supp. at 1547. As the case comes to us, the facts are undisputed and the only question is the legal issue whether the Detroit district director's unawareness of the pending appeal of the Buffalo classification constituted a "mistake of fact ... in [the] liquidation" of the Detroit entries. We agree with the Court of International Trade that it did not.
The present case thus is distinguishable from C.J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States, 68 Cust.Ct. 17, 336 F. Supp. 1395 (Cust.Ct.1972), aff'd, 61 C.C.P.A. 90, 499 F.2d 1277 (CCPA 1974), upon which Degussa relies. There the imported merchandise was liquidated as fuel cells subject to a nine percent duty. Neither the importer nor the district director was aware at the time that the merchandise constituted emergency defense material that could have been imported duty free. Upon discovering the fact, the importer sought reliquidation under § 1520(c) (1), on the ground that there had been a mistake of fact or inadvertence. In holding that reliquidation was proper, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated:
"Section 1520(c) (1) does not afford a second bite at the apple to importers who fail to challenge Customs' decision within the 90-day period set forth under § 1514." ITT Corp. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1384, 1387 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The purpose of section 1520(c) (1) was to allow for "the correction of errors and mistakes of the importers or the Customs Service ... which cannot be corrected under existing law." C.J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc., 336 F. Supp. at 1399 (citation omitted). In the present case, the classification error could and should have been corrected under the existing law governing the protest procedure.