Rio Contratos De Costura, S.A. v. United States

Court of International Trade

Rio Contratos De Costura, S.A. v. United States

10 Ct. Int'l Trade 778

CourtUnited States Court of International Trade

DecidedDecember 10, 1986

DocketCourt No. 83-03-00316

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 778 (Rio Contratos De Costura, S.A. 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

Rio Contratos De Costura, S.A. v. United States, 10 Ct. Int'l Trade 778 (cit 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum

Richard K. Willard, Assistant Attorney General; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice (Susan Handler-Menahem) for the defendant.

Aquilino Judge:

This action was commenced on February 23,1983, which was the 180th or last day to do so in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a). On that date, the plaintiff placed a check in the amount of the disputed duties in the mail, addressed to the Customs Service, which received the money some time later.

The defendant has moved to dismiss this action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in that plaintiffs payment was not in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a), which provides that an action such as this may be commenced "only if all liquidated duties, charges, or exac-tions have been paid at the time” of commencement.

The issue raised by the motion is thus the same as that raised in Nature’s Farm Products, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 676, Slip Op. 86-108 (Oct. 22, 1986), notice of appeal filed Dec. 8, 1986, wherein this court concluded that mailing duties on the last day, with resultant late receipt of them by Customs, does not satisfy the foregoing condition of 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a). Judgement was therefore entered, dismissing that action, and the court concludes that its reasoning applies equally to this action and entitles the defendant to grant of the same relief.

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

Memorandum

Richard K. Willard, Assistant Attorney General; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice (Susan Handler-Menahem) for the defendant.

Aquilino Judge:

This action was commenced on February 23,1983, which was the 180th or last day to do so in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a). On that date, the plaintiff placed a check in the amount of the disputed duties in the mail, addressed to the Customs Service, which received the money some time later.

The defendant has moved to dismiss this action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in that plaintiffs payment was not in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a), which provides that an action such as this may be commenced "only if all liquidated duties, charges, or exac-tions have been paid at the time” of commencement.

The issue raised by the motion is thus the same as that raised in Nature’s Farm Products, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 676, Slip Op. 86-108 (Oct. 22, 1986), notice of appeal filed Dec. 8, 1986, wherein this court concluded that mailing duties on the last day, with resultant late receipt of them by Customs, does not satisfy the foregoing condition of 28 U.S.C. § 2637(a). Judgement was therefore entered, dismissing that action, and the court concludes that its reasoning applies equally to this action and entitles the defendant to grant of the same relief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ct. Int'l Trade 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rio-contratos-de-costura-sa-v-united-states-cit-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack