United States v. Consolidated Merchandising Co.

Customs and Patent Appeals

United States v. Consolidated Merchandising Co.

527 F.2d 640, 63 C.C.P.A. 51, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 203

CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1976

DocketNo. 75-2, 3, 4, & 5 C.A.D. 1164

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 527 F.2d 640 (United States v. Consolidated Merchandising Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Consolidated Merchandising Co., 527 F.2d 640, 63 C.C.P.A. 51, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 203 (ccpa 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These consolidated appeals have been submitted on appellant’s motion for summary reversal, filed June 9, 1975, appellant’s memorandum in support thereof, appellees’ memorandum in opposition thereto, and the briefs filed in response to this court’s order of September 30, 1975.

Appellant’s motion is granted and the Customs Court’s Order of May 30,1974, is reversed for the reasons discussed in United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co., 62 CCPA 41, C.A.D. 1143, 509 F.2d 1187 (1975).

As conceded by the government, the equities in the present cases lie with appellees. The failure of the government to timely file agreed-upon decisions and judgments, though it cannot be relied upon by appellees as relieving them of their burden to comply with the statute, clearly raises a question of unjust enrichment of the government. Appellees’ remedy, however, does not lie with the courts, who are powerless to disregard the statute. That remedy, if remedy there is to be, must be sought by way of special legislation in the Congress. Quigley & Manard, Inc. v. United States, 61 CCPA 65, C.A.D. 1121, 496 F.2d 1214 (1974); United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co., supra at 1192.

Accordingly, the May 30, 1974 order of the Customs Court is reversed and the above-entitled cases are remanded with instructions to reinstate the January 9, 1974 judgment orders of that court.

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

Per Curiam.

These consolidated appeals have been submitted on appellant’s motion for summary reversal, filed June 9, 1975, appellant’s memorandum in support thereof, appellees’ memorandum in opposition thereto, and the briefs filed in response to this court’s order of September 30, 1975.

Appellant’s motion is granted and the Customs Court’s Order of May 30,1974, is reversed for the reasons discussed in United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co., 62 CCPA 41, C.A.D. 1143, 509 F.2d 1187 (1975).

As conceded by the government, the equities in the present cases lie with appellees. The failure of the government to timely file agreed-upon decisions and judgments, though it cannot be relied upon by appellees as relieving them of their burden to comply with the statute, clearly raises a question of unjust enrichment of the government. Appellees’ remedy, however, does not lie with the courts, who are powerless to disregard the statute. That remedy, if remedy there is to be, must be sought by way of special legislation in the Congress. Quigley & Manard, Inc. v. United States, 61 CCPA 65, C.A.D. 1121, 496 F.2d 1214 (1974); United States v. Torch Manufacturing Co., supra at 1192.

Accordingly, the May 30, 1974 order of the Customs Court is reversed and the above-entitled cases are remanded with instructions to reinstate the January 9, 1974 judgment orders of that court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 F.2d 640, 63 C.C.P.A. 51, 1976 CCPA LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-consolidated-merchandising-co-ccpa-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack