United States Shoe Corp. v. United States

22 Ct. Int'l Trade 880
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States Shoe Corp. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 907 F. Supp. 408
United States Court of International Trade·Decided August 28, 1998·No. Court No. 94-11-00668·Published

Opinion

ORDER ESTABLISHING CLAIMS RESOLUTION PROCEDURE

Restani, Judge:

Having considered defendant’s and various plaintiffs proposals for a claims resolution plan and comments on the court’s proposed plan to resolve the numerous suits filed with the court to recover unconstitutionally exacted Harbor Maintenance Taxes (HMT), the court hereby ORDERS:

Table of Contents

1. Plan

2. Harbor Maintenance Tax Refund Claim Form

3. Optional Harbor Maintenance Tax Refund Claim Form for Freight Forwarders.

4. Harbor Maintenance Tax Payment Listing and Certification

5. Model Judgment

I. Claim Resolution Process for HMT on Exports

Overview

In accordance with its previous determinations the court orders immediate refund of HMT on exports for payments received by Customs within two years of the filing of a complaint with the court seeking the recovery of such payments. A second refund may be necessary for older HMT payments related to exports, or for any quarterly payment which is in dispute. In addition, the court has determined that interest is owing on refunded amounts, but the United States is entitled to a stay pending appeal of this issue. Accordingly, if interest is finally determined to be owing, the second refund will include payment for whatever interest is owing.

Following submission of a claim form by a plaintiff the United States Customs Service will perform an initial search of its computer database for Harbor Maintenance Tax exporter payments. Plaintiff will review Customs’ information and, if the information is not disputed, will receive refunds for the specified amounts. Any plaintiff who wishes to dispute Customs’ information will have an opportunity to do so by submitting appropriate documentation to Customs. Claims that cannot be resolved after the plaintiffs submit their documentation will be submitted to the court for resolution. Thus, the claims disposition process will proceed as follows:

[881]*881A. Receipt of Claims Forms

Each plaintiff will complete a claim form (see attached) and return it to Customs (NOT THE COURT) at

U.S. Customs Service
HMT Refund Claim Forms
EO. Box 68940
Indianapolis, IN 46268

by October 15, 1998. Plaintiff will attach the filed complaint or complaints to its claim form. Customs will process refunds in chronological order by date of filing of plaintiffs first complaint. Claims filed after October 15, 1998, shall be processed in the order of receipt of the claim form.

B. Phase One — Initial Review of All Claims
1. Customs’ Verification

During Phase One of the claims process, Customs will inform plaintiffs of all quarterly payments within the time period covered by the plan revealed in its database. To accomplish that, computer technicians will perform queries of Customs’ database for each exporter listed on the claim form. Customs will not search its back-up documentation during this phase. Customs will complete a report, listing all of the payments verified by the database and return the HMT Payment Report and Certification (“Certification”) form to plaintiff. (See attached.)1 The Certification will not cover quarterly payments made prior to the two-year statute of limitations period.2 The United States will preserve any records relating to HMT payments, regardless of date of payment.

2. Plaintiffs’ Review

If it is satisfied with the payments listed on Customs’ report, a plaintiff will certify on the same form that it believes it is entitled to a refund in the amount specified. Plaintiff will then fill out and sign a judgment form (see attached) with the Certification attached and return the form to the Department of Justice for signing and filing with the court. The judgment should include a schedule listing all complaints related to the refunds. No separate order of consolidation is required.

3. Schedule and Entry of Judgment

Customs will commence processing of claims forms as soon after October 15,1998, as it arranges the claim forms by first complaint date and [882]*882is able to query its database. It will prepare and send out certifications as they are prepared.

After receipt of the judgment form from plaintiff (whether in Phase I or Phase II), defendant will have eleven days to file the judgment with the court.3 Customs will buildup its response speed so that after December 15,1998, Customs shall process no fewer than 500 claims per month. The court expects substantial processing of claims prior to December 15,1998, and that speed of processing will increase after some months. Customs will report to the court monthly on its progress. The first status report is due on November 15, 1998, and every 15th of the month thereafter.

C. Phase Two — Disputed Claims

Plaintiffs who wish to dispute the payments verified by Customs’ database will do so during Phase Two, which will begin immediately upon completion of Phase One, but no later than March 15,1999. Those plaintiffs will supply Customs with documentation supporting their claims for different or additional payments. Customs will query its computer database and perform the additional step of searching its paper records to attempt to resolve the dispute. Customs will then return a revised Harbor Maintenance Tax Payment Report and Certification form to plaintiffs within 60 days (time subject to adjustment by the court). Administrative review will resolve many disputes. If the revised Certification is satisfactory to plaintiffs, they will then return a judgment with attached Certification form to the Department of Justice for signature and filing within 11 days of receipt.

D. Phase Three — Judicial Review

If the disputes cannot be resolved, plaintiffs may request judicial resolution by filing a proposed scheduling order with the court. Procedures established by this plan are not intended to apply to cases requiringjudi-cial resolution and whatever substantive or procedural law is normally applicable will apply.

II. Resolution of Other Issues

Stone Container Corp. v. United States, Court No. 96-10-02366, and Swisher Int’l., Inc. v. United States, Court No. 95-03-00322, have been designated test cases on issues relating to jurisdiction and statute of limitations including, inter alia, claims that there is no statute of limitations, a six-year statute of limitations applies, and there was tolling duringthe pendency of class action certification. Florida Sugar Marketing and Terminal Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 98-05-01303, is designated a test case on the issue of whether HMT on domestic ship[883]*883ments is unconstitutional under the Export Clause.4 BMW Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, Court No.

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

United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 880 (cit 1998).

22 Ct. Int'l Trade 880 (United States Shoe Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. United States Shoe Corp.
523 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court, 1998)