Colin Hall Clothes, Ltd. v. United States

47 Cust. Ct. 55
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 14, 1961
DocketC.D. 2280
StatusPublished

This text of 47 Cust. Ct. 55 (Colin Hall Clothes, Ltd. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colin Hall Clothes, Ltd. v. United States, 47 Cust. Ct. 55 (cusc 1961).

Opinions

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of woven wool fabrics, imported from England and entered for consumption on July 25, 1957. It was assessed with duty at 37% cents per pound and 45 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1109(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the nonquota rate established by the Presidential proclamation of September 28, 1956, T.D. 54212, pursuant to the proviso attached to the modification of the rates provided for in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802. It is claimed that the merchandise is properly subject to duty at the quota rate of 37% cents per pound and 25 per centum ad valorem. Paragraph 1109 (a), as modified, provides:

[1109(a)] 'Woven fabrics, weighing more than four ounces per square yard, wholly or in chief value of wool, regardless of value_37%$ per lb. and 25% ad val.

Said paragraph is subject to the proviso following paragraph 1108 which reads:

NOTE: The United States reserves the right to increase the ad valorem part of the rate applicable to any of the fabrics provided for in item 1108 or 1109(a) of this Part to 45 per centum ad valorem on any of such fabrics which are entered in any calendar year in excess of an aggregate quantity by weight of 5 per centum of the average annual production of similar fabrics in the United States during the 3 immediately preceding calendar years.

Pursuant to this proviso, the President proclaimed, in T.D. 54212, that—

* * * the ad valorem part of the rate which shall be applied to the said fabrics described in the seventh recital of this proclamation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption m excess of the quantity specified in clause (a) of that recital, or in excess of a quantity notified to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to clause (b) of that recital, shall be 45 per centum ad valorem. [Italics supplied.)

Thereafter, on May 24,1957, the President notified the Secretary of the Treasury that for the calendar year of 1957 the quantity in excess of which the ad valorem rate would be 45 per centum ad valorem was 14,000,000 pounds. (T.D. 54370.)

[57]*57In the instant case, counsel have stipulated that customs officials determined that the quota was filled at 4:07 p.m. on July 25. The collector’s memorandum states:

Note: B/L 3433 dated 12/3/57 states that instant entry was filed after quota was filled.

This memorandum was not offered in evidence by either party. Presumably, however, customs officials determined that 14,000,000 pounds had been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption by-the stipulated time, 4:07 p.m.

At the trial, two witnesses testified for the plaintiff: George Francis Kehm and Robert E. Martin, employees of H. W. Robinson Freight Corp., customs broker, and two witnesses testified for the defendant: Harry W. Weiner, supervisory entry officer in the United States Customs Service at International Airport, and Charles Gaz-zaniga, supervisor in the cashier’s office there.

According to the testimony of these witnesses, entry papers submitted at International Airport are placed in a metal box in the collector’s office there. They are then picked up by entry clerks who check them for errors, omissions, and proper rates of duty. They see that the entry is made by the proper party and that the proper form is used. In the case of more than one package, they have to designate which package is to be held for examination by the appraiser. They see that the check is in order, the carrier certificate properly indorsed, and the invoice properly made out. If the entries are correct, they are placed in one basket on an entry clerk’s desk and, if there is an error, they are placed in another to be returned to the broker. The correct entries are gathered up by stamping clerks who stamp them in consecutive order. They are then submitted to the cashier with the proper check. He examines the check to see that it is made out properly, perforates the permit “Paid,” signs the permit and the receipt copy for the broker, and time-stamps the quota copy.

The witnesses estimated that on a busy day it might take from 15 minutes to two hours for an entry to be completely processed and timestamped.

The entry papers in the instant case were prepared by the customs broker and were deposited, together with the required documents and the check, in the metal box in the collector’s office prior to 4:07 p.m. on July 25,1957. After the regular course of procedure had been followed, the cashier perforated the permit “Paid” and time-stamped the quota copy 4:20 p.m. (defendant’s exhibit A). The quota copy was eventually given to the quota section of the Bureau of Customs.

It is plaintiff’s claim that the merchandise was entered at the time the documents were presented to the collector, which was prior to 4:07 p.m., and that, therefore, it is subject to duty at the quota rate. Defendant contends that goods cannot be considered entered for the [58]*58purpose of quota priority until the collector has had an opportunity to examine the papers and accept or reject them and that, in the instant case, the merchandise was not entered for quota purposes until after official acceptance of the papers and the deposit of duties, which did not occur until 4:20 p.m., by which time the quota had been filled.

It is to be noted first of all that this is not a seasonal-rate quota but a quantitative quota and that the quota is exhausted as soon as 14,000,000 pounds have been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption. Therefore, quantity is controlling, and time is pertinent only insofar as it is determined that the quota quantity has been entered by a certain time.

The courts have held that merchandise is not considered entered, or withdrawn, for consumption until the transaction is completed by the payment of estimated duties and the issuance of a delivery permit. Sucrest Corporation v. United States, 31 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 220, C.A.D. 275; United States v. Mussman Shafer, Inc., 40 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 109, C.A.D. 506; F. J. Benkart & Co., Inc. v. United States, 2 Cust. Ct. 466, C.D. 177; Dorf International, Ltd. v. United States, 37 Cust. Ct. 436, Abstract 60406; Cities Service Oil Co. v. United States, 40 Cust. Ct. 558, Abstract 61956.

Section 315 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953, provides:

(a) Except as otherwise specially provided for, the rate or rates of duty imposed by or pursuant to this Act or any other law on any article entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption shall be the rate or rates in effect when the documents comprising the entry for consumption or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption and any estimated or liquidated duties then required to he paid have been deposited with the appropriate customs officer in .the form and manner prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, * * *.

In Senate Report No. 632, made in connection with the said amendment to the tariff act (U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 83d Congress, 1st session, vol. 2, pp.

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

Related

F. J. Benkart & Co. v. United States
2 Cust. Ct. 466 (U.S. Customs Court, 1939)
Dorf International, Ltd. v. United States
37 Cust. Ct. 436 (U.S. Customs Court, 1956)
Cities Service Oil Co. v. United States
40 Cust. Ct. 558 (U.S. Customs Court, 1958)
Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States
164 F. 376 (Seventh Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Cust. Ct. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colin-hall-clothes-ltd-v-united-states-cusc-1961.