Affiliated Fm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., & Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. The United States

Federal Circuit

Affiliated Fm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., & Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. The United States

783 F.2d 1041, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 1986

Docket85-2525

StatusPublished

This text of 783 F.2d 1041 (Affiliated Fm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., & Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Affiliated Fm Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., & Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. The United States, 783 F.2d 1041, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20002 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

783 F.2d 1041

7 ITRD 2111, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 42

AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of Fiat Motors
of North America, Inc., & Fiat Motors of North
America, Inc., Appellants,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Appeal No. 85-2525.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1986.

Appealed from U.S. Court of International Trade; Dominick L. dIcarlo, judge.

Henry J. Catenacci, Podvey, Sachs & Catenacci, Newark, N.J., argued for appellants. With him on brief was Herbert I. Waldman.

Susan Hendler-Menahem, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued for appellee. With him on brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office.

Before RICH, DAVIS and BALDWIN, Circuit Judges.

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the United States Court of International Trade dismissing petitioner's claim for a refund of customs duties or reliquidation of the entries for automobiles which had regularly entered this country and had subsequently been damaged by flood.

Petitioner's arguments are adequately treated in the lower court's opinion No. 85-47, dated April 19, 1985, 608 F.Supp. 651. We affirm on the basis of that opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI