Case law

Nature's Farm Products, Inc. v. United States

648 F. Supp. 6 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 22, 1986

[MJailing a check for the duties does not qualify the duties as “having been paid” under § 2637(a)____ Rather for a plaintiff to have fulfilled the mandatory statutory conditions precedent to suit, Customs must have received … Unless it is clearly otherwise agreed, the mailing of a letter is not a sufficient notice to quit a tenancy, it is not actual payment of money that is inclosed, it does not transfer title to a check or other document; it

Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United States

20 Ct. Int'l Trade 883 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 23, 1996

The statute clearly states that interest accrues back to the date of deposit. … Any waiver of such sovereign’s immunity is to be strictly construed, and, in the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune

Swisher International, Inc. v. United States

178 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 11, 2001

Discussion The federal government is immune from an award of interest absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 311 (1986); see also IBM, 201 F.3d at 1370. … To prove that the tax HMT is confiscatory, Plaintiffs must establish that the tax was not reasonably related to a substantial public purpose. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v.

Dynacraft Industries, Inc. v. United States

24 Ct. Int'l Trade 987 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 8, 2000

Dynacraft qualified one statement, though, alleging that Customs acknowledged that 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(a) does not apply. Dynacraft misinterprets Customs meaning and actions. … “In the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award.” Library of Congress v.

Sony Electronics, Inc. v. United States

143 F. Supp. 2d 970 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 5, 2001

Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 314 (1986), where the Supreme Court held that “[i]n the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune … Plaintiffs have not shown the Court that reassigning these cases to a three-judge panel would provide benefits or advantages that clearly “outweigh the benefits derived from the ‘more efficient utilization of judicial resources

US JVC Corp. v. United States

15 F. Supp. 2d 906 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 7, 1998

These decisions were based on well-settled principles of sovereign immunity; since the United States can only be sued if it explicitly waives its sovereign immunity, and the terms of a statute waiving sovereign immunity define … Since 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) clearly waives the Government’s immunity from suit, the Court focuses on 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and whether it either expressly or by fair implication provides for equitable tolling.

National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Von Raab

650 F. Supp. 1007 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 10, 1986

Similarly, plaintiffs look to the language of § 423(a) to establish their interpretation: “no ethyl alcohol or mixture thereof may be considered ... eligible for duty-free treatment ... unless the ethyl alcohol or mixture … is there “an indication that Congress meant to endorse or sanction these letter rulings,” Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion for a Stay at 10, but I cannot accept the further assertion that Congress did not intend to "immunize

Canadian Reynolds Metals Co. v. United States

28 Ct. Int'l Trade 541 · United States Court of International Trade · Apr 23, 2004

As a sovereign entity, the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). … . § 1581(a) constitutes an explicit waiver of immunity by the United States. US JVC Corp. v. United States, 22 CIT 687, 694, 15 F. Supp. 2d 906, 913 (1998).

Skf USA Inc. v. United States

502 F. Supp. 2d 1325 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 26, 2007

SKF’s certified qualifying expenditures represent 2.9699% of the total qualifying expenditures for this Commerce Case No. A-588-804. … Customs asserts that a decision not to take enforcement action is immune from judicial review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). See id.

Elkem Metals Co. v. United States

44 F. Supp. 2d 288 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 23, 1999

“It is elementary that ‘the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . , and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the … Elkem, as a domestic producer of silicomanganese, qualifies as such an interested party, and jurisdiction vests in this Court to review the challenged determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), as provided for in 19

Former Employees of Fisher & Co. v. United States Department of Labor

507 F. Supp. 2d 1321 · United States Court of International Trade · Aug 23, 2007

Labor states that the Government must explicitly waive its sovereign immunity in the context of a statute, and so establish a court’s jurisdiction in a suit against the Government. … Willhoft’s petition for certification clearly acknowledged that she had been laid off for more than one year.

Gilmore Steel Corp., Or. Steel Mills Div. v. United States

652 F. Supp. 1545 · United States Court of International Trade · Jan 16, 1987

Id. at 9.2 3 The parties have not alerted the Court to any established construction of the term “prompt.” … POSCO urges that the Court adopt the 120 day period specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) and USCIT R. 4(h) 4 to establish the meaning of prompt in USCIT R. 3(e).

B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States

794 F. Supp. 1148 · United States Court of International Trade · Jun 9, 1992

Section 1313(j)(2) clearly and unambiguously states that imported merchandise, “on which was paid any duty, tax, or fee imposed under Federal law because of its importation” qualifies for drawback if the substituted goods … However, Customs established a substantive new requirement that does not exist in the statute.

AOC International, Inc. v. United States

721 F. Supp. 314 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 11, 1989

Instead of negating this distortion, the ITA’s differentiation in treatment of warranty-labor in the two markets clearly aggravates these distortions. … Defendant-intervenor argues that pursuant to the established administrative practice of the ITA, no such adjustment should be allowed.

National Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker

623 F. Supp. 1262 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 26, 1985

Here, the Secretary does not dispute the duty for imported fuel ethanol, which is clearly stated in the Tariff Schedules of the United States and which Congress clearly intends be imposed. … None of the other contested documents, or the redacted portions thereof, qualify for such exemption.

Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Corp., Ltd. v. United States

938 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 16, 2013

On March 26, 2013, Commerce rescinded the NSR because Maycarrier did not qualify as a new shipper. See Final Rescission, 78 Fed. Reg. at 18,317. … “The burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the party seeking to invoke th[e] Court's jurisdiction.” Bhullar v. United States, 27 CIT 532, 535, 259 F.

United States v. Tri-State Hospital Supply Corp.

74 F. Supp. 2d 1311 · United States Court of International Trade · Oct 8, 1999

Although Hervey did hold Gaudin to be inapplicable to the mixed law and fact question with which it was presented, Hervey's holding was made in regard to a claim of qualified immunity. … Questions of qualified immunity are often treated as preliminary questions that, though possessing factual elements, are to be decided by courts. See Hunter v.

North Dakota Wheat Commission v. United States

342 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 29, 2004

that it waives such immunity. … Finally, plaintiffs fail to establish that they acted diligently. Cf. Former Employees of Sonoco Products Co. v. Elaine Chao, 27 CIT __, 273 F.

Meyer Corp., U.S. v. United States

2016 CIT 18 · United States Court of International Trade · Feb 23, 2016

However, “[a] claim of deliberative process privilege, even when properly established, is not absolute[; t]he deliberative process privilege is qualified, requiring the court to balance the interests of the parties for … To the extent the plaintiff disagrees with Customs’ analysis and denial of its protest, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to first-sale and GSP treatment in accordance with the facts and law established

Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States

116 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 1, 2000

Finally, plaintiff contends defendant’s arguments based on sovereign immunity are irrelevant. According to plaintiff, the statute clearly requires defendant to pay interest. … Otherwise, the United States is immune from an interest award.