Bulova Watch Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Int'l Trade 67
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedFebruary 25, 1985
DocketCourt No. 83-11-01613
StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 67 (Bulova Watch Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 67 (cit 1985).

Opinion

Ford, Judge:

This action arises from an entry of watch parts imported by plaintiff which were classified by Customs under Item 720.75, Tariff Schedules of the United States, as "other assemblies or subassemblies for watch movements * * *” and assessed with duty in the sum of $9,204.48. Plaintiff contended the merchandise was entitled to entry free of duty under Item 800.00, TSUS, as American goods returned, not advanced in value or improved in condition, etc.

A timely protest was filed and subsequently denied for failure or plaintiff to supply certain required information. Plaintiff then timely instituted this civil action.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that a jurisdictional prerequisite has not been satisfied, namely, failure to pay the liquidated duties at the time the action was instituted as required by 28 U.S.C. 2637(a).1 An affidavit to this effect by the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs Service, has been filed with defendant.

Plaintiff, however, contends the sume due was paid as a result of Customs applying refunds of $9,218.00 due it on other entries. This payment is not disputed but was applied by Customs as a result of a liquidation approximately three months subsequent to the institution of this action.

As indicated, the statutory provision requires that an action may be instituted "only if all liquidated duties, charges, or exactions have been paid at the time the action is commenced. ” (Emphasis added.) In view of the clear language of the statute, the Court is compelled to dismiss this action. See United States v. Novelty Imports, In., 60 [68]*68CCPA 131, C.A.D. 1096, 475 F. 2d 1385 (1973); Eddietron, Inc. v. United States, 84 Gust. Ct. 158, C.D. 4853, 493 F. Supp. 5875 (1980). In view of the foregoing it is hereby

Ordered, that the action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Ct. Int'l Trade 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulova-watch-co-v-united-states-cit-1985.