Court Opinion

ID: 9492866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:52:21.25726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:31.950924
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Court of International Trade properly granted Century its statutory1 right to correct the omission of notice of the “duty paid” status of the imported goods on its July 29, 1993 invoices. It is inappropriate, and incorrect, for this court to revoke that statutory right of correction.
*1314The Customs Service readily acknowledged that it would have assessed the duty as Century proposes, and as required by § 1401a(b)(3),2 had it been advised that the invoice price included the duty. That the invoice itself did not so state was surely an error, mistake, or inadvertence as contemplated by § 1520(c)(1). It is not disputed that the error, mistake, or inadvertence was unintentional. The Court of International Trade found that this was “an error in the preparation of the entry papers, so that the duty-paid nature of the price was not indicated at entry.” An error in designation of a “duty paid” import transaction on the invoice is the kind of error for which Congress authorized correction.
The Customs usage of the term “duty paid” does not mean that the duty has already been levied and separately paid; it means that the invoice price includes the duty. When Customs is notified that goods are “duty paid” it assesses the duty accordingly, thus avoiding the levy of a duty on a duty.3 The excess duty here levied was an improper assessment based on error and inadvertence, as was found by the Court of International Trade on the evidence. The error was not made by the Customs Service, but by the parties to the importation. Customs Agent Ryan testified that he was told of the duty arrangement “in mid ’93,” but that the liquidation did not take account of it because it was not on the invoice. The importer sought correction within a few days after the incorrect liquidation. Congress authorized the liberal correction of such errors, recognizing the complexities of international trade and the public interest in just and correct assessments.
The majority opinion postulates that the error made by the parties was “negligently” repeated, transforming an otherwise correctable inadvertence into a non-correctable penalty. The decision before us relates to four invoices dated July 29, 1993 for four apparently concurrent shipments. There is no allegation of egregious inattention, as contrasted with simple error. Indeed, I wonder why an error becomes uncorrectable if made more than once. The request to correct the error and inadvertence was made promptly. Precedent well supports the correction of such errors. For example, in Aviall of Texas, Inc. v. United States, 70 F.3d 1248, 1249 (Fed.Cir.1995) the failure to file an import certification was found by this court to be correctable. In Executone Information Systems v. United States, 96 F.3d 1383 (Fed.Cir.1996) the court held that the failure to furnish documentation supporting a claim of duty-free entry would have been correctable but for the importer’s “intentional or negligent inaction.” Id. at 1389. The Customs Service has not charged that there was intentional or negligent inaction in this case. The panel majority’s spontaneous fact-finding to this effect is unsupported by evidence.
The panel majority also classifies the arrangement between Miller and Molson as a post-importation “rebate.” It was not a rebate4 — it was a simple agreement that *1315the exporter would pay the customs duty, the agreement stating that “Molson will promptly pay or reimburse [Miller] for the cost of the retaliatory import duties affecting imports of Canadian beer into the United States.... ” It is thus inapt to rely on § 1401a(b)(4)(B) (authorizing Customs “to disregard rebates after the date of importation”) as authorizing the admittedly incorrect levy and barring its correction.
The refusal of the majority of this panel to permit the statutory right of correction in this ease is inappropriate, unjust, and contrary to law.

. 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1).
A clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence ... not amounting to an error in the construction of a law, adverse to the importer and manifest from the record or established by documentary evidence, in any entry, liquidation, or other customs transaction [may give rise to a reliquidation or a reconciliation] when the error, mistake, or inadvertence is brought to the attention of the Customs Service within one year after the date of liquidation.

. 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b). Transaction value of imported merchandise.
(3) The transaction value of imported merchandise does not include any of the following, if identified separately from the price actually paid or payable ...
(B) The customs duties and other Federal taxes currently payable on the imported merchandise by reason of its importation ....

. The transaction value of the goods is calculated by dividing the "duty paid" price by 100% plus the duty rate. As an example, assume that the invoice price of the importation here at issue is $12. Since the duty rate is 50%, the transaction value of the goods is $12 divided by 150%; the transaction value is thus $8, and the duty is $4. Since Customs was not advised of the "duty paid” status this adjustment was not made; thus the importer paid a higher value for the goods, and Customs collected a duty on a duty, for a total duty of $6 in the example.

.REBATE, n. A return of part of a payment, serving as a discount or reduction. Blacks Law Dictionary 1273 (7th ed.l 999).