Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States
Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
Docket Number | C.R.D. 77-5,Court No. 74-11-03088. |
Citation | 78 Cust. Ct. 192,432 F. Supp. 1347 |
Parties | KNICKERBOCKER LIQUORS CORP. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Rode & Qualey, New York City (Peter Jay Baskin, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C. (Laura D. Millman, New York City, trial atty.), for defendant.
Pursuant to rules 4.7(b)(2) and 4.12 of the rules of court, the defendant has moved to dismiss the above-entitled action for lack of jurisdiction because of plaintiff's failure to timely file the summons in said action pursuant to 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a), providing:
The following facts, pertinent to the determination of this motion, are undisputed:
In support of its motion to dismiss the defendant asserts that the timeliness of the filing of the summons in the instant action must be determined in conjunction with the provisions of 19 U.S.C., section 1515, providing:
The defendant concludes from the foregoing statute that the failure of a customs official to either allow or deny a protest within a period of two years from the day of its filing constitutes a constructive denial thereof, causing the 180-day time limitation to automatically begin running on the day immediately following the last day of said two-year period, namely — April 26, 1974. By the time the summons was actually filed on November 7, 1974, the defendant charges that a total period of 196 days had elapsed thus causing the filing of the summons in question to be untimely.
This court is unable to accept the contention urged by the defendant. It appears that in its reasoning the defendant misconceives the purpose and the intent evidenced by the Congress in the enactment of 19 U.S.C., section 1515(a). The foregoing section relates to the manner in which administrative review shall be conducted and determined by customs officials. It is regulatory in character and prescribes the period of time and the form in which the obligations and responsibilities of these officials are to be performed. The specific obligation is imposed thereby on customs to mail a notice of denial to a protestant. This section does not serve as a statute of limitation with respect to the commencement of an action, but only provides for the act or occurrence from which the 180-day time limitation provided by 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a)(1) begins to run.
It is this latter section (section 2631(a)(1)) which imposes the limitation period on the commencement of a court action and specifies when this period commences. The language of this section is plain and unequivocal. The 180-day limitation period begins to run not from the date a protest is denied, but from the date the notice of denial is mailed to the plaintiff. Thus, until the independent, though related, obligation to mail the notice of denial is complied with by customs, the corresponding obligation imposed on the plaintiff by 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a)(1), to file a summons within 180 days thereafter does not attach. To accept the defendant's contention that the 180-day limitation period automatically commences by operation of law in cases where no administrative review of a protest occurs within two years of its filing, would not only ignore the unambiguous phraseology of 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a)(1), but would also dispense with the directive contained in 19 U.S.C., section 1515(a) that customs mail notices of denial to protestants in all such cases.
Had Congress intended the automatic commencement of the 180-day limitation period after two years of administrative inaction on a protest by customs, it, indeed, would have expressly so provided. The intent of Congress is clearly evidenced by the contrasting statutory provisions relating to a protest subject to accelerated disposition. 19 U.S.C., section 1515(b) provides that a protest, which has not been allowed or denied within 30 days following the date of mailing of a request for an accelerated disposition is deemed denied. With respect to the protest subject to accelerated disposition, the Congress has placed the affirmative burden on the plaintiff to commence an action by the filing of a summons within 180 days after the date of the constructive denial. No notice of denial is required to be mailed by customs. Accordingly, in the same manner that section 2631(a)(1) refers to section 1515(a) in order to specifically provide the time and/or occurrence from which the 180-day limitation period commences (date of mailing notice of denial), so in the case of a protest subject to accelerated disposition, section 2631(a)(2) refers to section 1515(b) for the purpose of providing the specific but dissimilar time and/or occurrence from which the 180-day limitation period commences (the 30th day following the mailing of a request for accelerated disposition). To place a construction on 19 U.S.C., section 1515(a) and 28 U.S.C., section 2631(a)(1) where accelerated disposition is not requested, as urged by the defendant, would destroy the very distinction so patently intended by the Congress.
The legislative history of the Customs Courts Act of 1970 illustrates the intent of Congress with respect to the issue presented by the present motion. In its formative stages the Senate Bill 2624, which eventually became the 1970 Act, contained an additional subsection (c) section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and providing for the constructive denial of protests after a period of two years without administrative action. The proposed subsection provided in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tikal Distributing Corp. v. U.S.
...statute of limitation against the individual seeking to contest the denial of such a protest. In Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States, 78 Cust.Ct. 192, 432 F.Supp. 1347 (1977), plaintiff filed a protest on April 26, 1972. Customs mailed a notice of denial on November 1, 1974, and pl......
-
US v. Ataka America, Inc., Court No. 92-10-00710.
...party has 180 days from the mailing of the notice of denial to challenge Customs' decision. Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States, 78 Cust.Ct. 192, 194, 432 F.Supp. 1347, 1349 (1977). Section 1515(a) was enacted primarily to benefit private parties by requiring that Customs notify th......
-
Atteberry v. U.S.
...brought challenging those denials. To state such an absurd proposition is to reject it. Cf. Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States, 78 Cust. Ct. 192, 432 F.Supp. 1347, 1351 (Cust.Ct. 1977) (where court was "unwilling to presume that customs officials would intentionally be guilty of s......
-
Bond Street, Ltd. v. U.S.
...courts have uniformly held that the jurisdictional time period does not commence. In Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. u. United States, 78 Cust.Ct. 192, 432 F.Supp. 1347 (1977), the U.S. Court of Claims The 180-day limitation period begins to run not from the date a protest is denied, but from t......
-
The Federal Circuit Stumbles: U.s. Customs Gets "green Light" for Indefinite Indecision on Importer Protests
...statute to allow or deny all protests within a period of two years of their filing. See Knickerbocker Liquors Corp. v. United States, 432 F. Supp. 1347, 1351 (1977).114. 1970 Act Hearings, 91st Cong. 125 (1969) (statement of Bradley Colburn, President, Association of the Customs Bar). He al......