Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. U.S., 01-1460.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-1491.,No. 01-1538.,No. 01-1484.,No. 01-1521.,No. 01-1534.,No. 01-1464.,No. 01-1532.,No. 01-1507.,No. 01-1523.,No. 01-1499.,No. 01-1506.,No. 01-1490.,No. 01-1540.,No. 01-1537.,No. 01-1539.,No. 01-1504.,No. 01-1529.,No. 01-1502.,No. 01-1528.,No. 01-1466.,No. 01-1493.,No. 01-1495.,No. 01-1487.,No. 01-1482.,No. 01-1505.,No. 01-1514.,No. 01-1494.,No. 01-1513.,No. 01-1498.,No. 01-1509.,No. 01-1489.,No. 01-1488.,No. 01-1462.,No. 01-1496.,No. 01-1469.,No. 01-1520.,No. 01-1478.,No. 01-1477.,No. 01-1511.,No. 01-1518.,No. 01-1460.,No. 01-1479.,No. 01-1470.,No. 01-1461.,No. 01-1536.,No. 01-1471.,No. 01-1463.,No. 01-1515.,No. 01-1468.,No. 01-1483.,No. 01-1530.,No. 01-1508.,No. 01-1497.,No. 01-1465.,No. 01-1541.,No. 01-1467.,No. 01-1531.,No. 01-1472.,No. 01-1510.,No. 01-1473.,No. 01-1526.,No. 01-1527.,No. 01-1519.,No. 01-1525.,No. 01-1485.,No. 01-1522.,No. 01-1492.,No. 01-1524.,No. 01-1481.,No. 01-1543.,No. 01-1516.,No. 01-1500.,No. 01-1480.,No. 01-1474.,No. 01-1542.,No. 01-1533.,No. 01-1475.,No. 01-1486.,No. 01-1535.,No. 01-1512.,No. 01-1517.,No. 01-1476.,No. 01-1501.,No. 01-1503.,01-1460.,01-1461.,01-1462.,01-1463.,01-1464.,01-1465.,01-1466.,01-1467.,01-1468.,01-1469.,01-1470.,01-1471.,01-1472.,01-1473.,01-1474.,01-1475.,01-1476.,01-1477.,01-1478.,01-1479.,01-1480.,01-1481.,01-1482.,01-1483.,01-1484.,01-1485.,01-1486.,01-1487.,01-1488.,01-1489.,01-1490.,01-1491.,01-1492.,01-1493.,01-1494.,01-1495.,01-1496.,01-1497.,01-1498.,01-1499.,01-1500.,01-1501.,01-1502.,01-1503.,01-1504.,01-1505.,01-1506.,01-1507.,01-1508.,01-1509.,01-1510.,01-1511.,01-1512.,01-1513.,01-1514.,01-1515.,01-1516.,01-1517.,01-1518.,01-1519.,01-1520.,01-1521.,01-1522.,01-1523.,01-1524.,01-1525.,01-1526.,01-1527.,01-1528.,01-1529.,01-1530.,01-1531.,01-1532.,01-1533.,01-1534.,01-1535.,01-1536.,01-1537.,01-1538.,01-1539.,01-1540.,01-1541.,01-1542.,01-1543. |
| Citation | 301 F.3d 1299 |
| Parties | HOHENBERG BROS. COMPANY, A.C. Monk and Company, Inc., The Austin Tobacco Company, Inc., Cargill Americas, Inc., Cargill Citro-America, Inc., Cargill Fertilizer, Inc., Cargill, Incorporated, Carolina Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc., Dibrell Brothers, Inc., Excel Corporation, General Electric Company, K.R. Edwards Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc., Maclin-Zimmer-McGill Tobacco Co., Inc., Monk-Austin International, Inc., Thorpe-Greenville Export Tobacco Co., Inc., T.S. Ragsdale Company, Inc., Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Inc., U.S. Steel International, Inc., U.S. Steel Mining Co., Inc., USX Corporation, USX Engineers & Consultants, Inc., BASF Corporation, BASF Magnetics Corporation, AKZO Nobel Chemicals, Inc., Reynolds Metals Company, Zeneca Inc., ISK Biosciences Corporation, Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, ADM/Growmark River Systems, Inc., Valley Grain Products, Inc., The Coleman Company, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Company, Inc., Carolina Trading Corporation, James I. Miller Tobacco Co., Inc., PMA Incorporated, The Tobacco Trading Corporation, W.A. Adams Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Trading America Corporation, BP Chemicals, Inc., CBS Corporation, Continental Grain Company, Contiquincy Bunge, L.L.C., Tacoma Export Marketing Company, Farmland Industries, Inc., Farmland Foods, Inc., Farmland Hydro, L.P., Tradigrain, Inc., Tradigrain, S.A., Geneva, Lexmark International, Inc., McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Monsanto Company, Solar Turbines Incorporated, EEC International, Inc., ECCA Calcium Products, Inc., Koch Carbon, Inc., Koch Refining Company, Olin Corporation, Physics International Company, Sterling Chemicals, Inc., IMC Global Operations, Inc., IMC-Agrico Company, and International Multifoods Corporation., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Daniel G. Jarcho, McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Peter Buck Feller and Joseph F. Dennin.
Jeffrey A. Belkin, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; Jeanne E. Davidson, Deputy Director; and Todd A. Hughes, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Richard K. McManus, Office of the Chief Counsel, United States Customs Service, of Washington, DC.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
In the context of refunds of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, the United States Court of International Trade denied Hohenberg Bros., Co.'s motion to amend the court's consent judgments. Because the Court of International Trade did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, this court affirms.
These consolidated cases involve the refund of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) to certain exporters. The HMT, enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4461-4462, is an ad valorem tax on shipments of commercial cargo. Several thousand exporters challenged the constitutionality of the HMT as applied to exporters. In a test case, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade held that the HMT, as applied to exports, violated the Export Clause of the United States Constitution. United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 907 F.Supp. 408 (CIT 1995). On appeal, a five-judge panel of this court agreed. United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 114 F.3d 1564 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Supreme Court affirmed. United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 118 S.Ct. 1290, 140 L.Ed.2d 453 (1998).
After the Supreme Court affirmed the unconstitutionality of the HMT on exports, the Court of International Trade adopted a procedure for Customs to provide HMT refunds. In compliance with that procedure, each claimant executed a consent judgment as prescribed by the Court of International Trade. The consent judgment entitled the exporters to an immediate HMT refund within the two-year statute of limitations period for suits filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
Concurrently, the Court of International Trade developed a test case procedure to resolve the remaining issues surrounding the HMT, including the award of prejudgment interest. The court selected International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, No. 94-10-00625, 1998 WL 325156 (CIT 1998), as the test case to determine the eligibility of HMT refunds for prejudgment interest. In that case, IBM had filed its action under § 1581(i).
The Court of International Trade entered Hohenberg's consent judgment on March 30, 1999. Neither party appealed that judgment. Consequently, Hohenberg immediately received a refund of its HMT principal from Customs. That judgment, as well as the consent judgments executed by other exporters, noted the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), consistent with that court's jurisdictional rulings at the time. The judgments also provided for interest on the principal if the appellate proceedings in the IBM test case found HMT refunds entitled to interest. In International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 201 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir.2000) (IBM), this court determined that no statute provided an interest award arising out of a judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
Subsequently, on October 13, 2000, Hohenberg, along with those exporters who had received immediate HMT refunds under the consent judgments and who had initially challenged the HMT through the refund-request-and-protest process identified in Swisher International, Inc. v. United States, 205 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2000),1 filed a motion before the Court of International Trade seeking to amend those judgments. Specifically, Hohenberg sought to amend the March 30, 1999 consent judgment to invoke the jurisdiction of that court under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Further, Hohenberg sought an award of post-summons interest under 28 U.S.C. § 2644, the interest provision applicable to awards under § 1581(a) jurisdiction. On December 28, 2000, the Court of International Trade denied that motion.
On March 21, 2001, Hohenberg renewed its motion to amend the March 30, 1999 judgment under Court of International Trade Rules (RCIT) 59(e) and 60(b) to acquire jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade under § 1581(a). Hohenberg additionally sought an award of post-summons interest under 28 U.S.C. § 2644, and an award of pre-summons interest under 19 U.S.C. § 1505, or in the alternative, under the Constitution of the United States. The trial court denied that motion on May 10, 2001. The court acknowledged that "[a]s in Swisher, [Hohenberg] perfected § 1581(a) protest denial jurisdiction." Nonetheless, the Court of International Trade held that the judgment was not jurisdictionally defective and declined to amend the judgment. In so holding, the court reasoned that it had jurisdiction in this matter under either § 1581(a) or (i). Hohenberg timely appealed to this court, which has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
On appeal, Hohenberg argues that this court's decision in Swisher requires the Court of International Trade to amend the jurisdictional statement in the judgment. Hohenberg asserts that because jurisdiction of the court was proper under § 1581(a), Hohenberg is entitled to post-summons interest on HMT refunds under 28 U.S.C. § 2644. Hohenberg further cites IBM as confirming that § 2644 requires an award of interest in this case. Additionally, Hohenberg contends that because the HMT is treated as a customs duty under 26 U.S.C. § 4462(f)(1) for administration and enforcement purposes, Hohenberg is entitled to pre-summons interest on HMT refunds pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1505. Alternatively, Hohenberg argues that the Export Clause mandates payment of interest on HMT refunds. Finally, Hohenberg argues that the government's retention of interest on the unconstitutional HMT amounts to a Fifth Amendment taking of private property.
This court reviews a refusal by the Court of International Trade to grant relief on a motion under RCIT 59 or 60 for an abuse of discretion. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2001). To constitute an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision must be clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful, or based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous conclusions of law. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1460 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (en banc). This court reviews legal determinations by the Court of International Trade de novo. Fla. Sugar Mktg. & Terminal Ass'n v. United States, 220 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2000).
Courts interpret a consent judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nufarm America's, Inc. v. U.S.
...may lie under both §§ 1581(a) and 1581(i) for purposes other than constitutional claims. Id. at 7-9 (citing Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States, 301 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2002); Sony Elec. Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 336, 143 F.Supp.2d 970 (2001); Swisher Int'l., 178 F.Supp.2d at 1356......
-
United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...We review the trial court's denial of the government's motion to amend for any abuse of discretion. Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States, 301 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2002). With respect to postjudgment interest, 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) provides that such “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any mon......
-
BASR P'ship v. United States
...or fanciful, or based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous conclusions of law. Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States , 301 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In exercising its discretion to grant BASR’s request for reasonable litigation costs, the trial court rejected the Govern......
-
Bell v. Dep't of Def., 2020-1325
...arbitrary or fanciful, or based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or erroneous conclusions of law." Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States, 301 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)). Excluding testimony of......