Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States, (1999)

Extract

---

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. United States, (1999)

PAGE: 1

:

SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.; : AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., :

: Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Consol. Court No. : 96-02-00398

UNITED STATES, : :

Defendant. : ___________________________________:

Plaintiffs, Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land") and American President Lines, Ltd. ("APL"), move, pursuant to USCIT R. 56, for summary judgment on the grounds that the undisputed facts show that, as a matter of law, the United States Customs Service ("Customs") misapplied the decision of Texaco Marine Servs., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1539 (Fed Cir. 1994), in assessing duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a) (1994) on plaintiffs' entries of repairs completed on their United States-flagged vessels while abroad. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that Customs: (1) erred in finding that plaintiffs were per se liable for duties on vessel repair expenses under 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a) without performing Texaco's mandated case-by-case analysis of each expense to determine if such expense would not have been incurred "but for" the dutiable repair work; (2) improperly applied dicta in Texaco concerning certain vessel repair expenses to similar expenses at issue in this case; (3) failed to properly apply an alleged second prong of Texaco's "but for" test by not providing notice in the Federal Register as required under 19 U.S.C. § 1315(d) (1994) when Customs issued rulings changing various established and uniform practices ("EUPs") that previously treated certain vessel repair expenses at issue in this case as nondutiable; and (4) violated 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) (1994) by issuing protest review decisions modifying or revoking prior Customs interpretive rulings or decisions without giving interested parties notice and opportunity to comment as required under the statute. Plaintiffs also argue that Customs inappropriately applied a pro rata duty assessment formula to certain vessel repair expenses that is inconsistent with Texaco and 19 U.S.C. § 1466(a). However, since such expenses were not raised in this case, they request that the proration issue be dismissed or severed from this action to allow them to litigate the matter in related actions which more accurately raise the issue. Plaintiffs

PAGE: 2

also request that the Court hold the vessel repair entries as nondutiable and order Customs to reliquidate the protested entries and refund all excess du...

See the full content of this document

---