Shigoto International Corp v. United States, C.D. 4199
| Decision Date | 13 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | C.D. 4199 |
| Citation | Shigoto International Corp v. United States, 66 Cust. Ct. 252 (Cust. Ct. 1971) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
| Parties | SHIGOTO INTERNATIONAL CORP <I>v.</I> UNITED STATES. |
James G. McGoldrick for the plaintiff.
L. Patrick Gray, III, Assistant Attorney General(Velta A. Melnbrencis, trial attorney), for the defendant.
Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges
These two protests — which were consolidated for trial — involve certain items imported from Japan via the port of Philadelphia that were described on the consumption entries as (among other things)"sockets and wires for motors."They were classified by the government under paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as parts of toys and assessed duty at the rate of 35 percent.Plaintiff claims primarily that the imports should be classified under paragraph 353 as articles in chief value of metal, suitable for distributing electrical energy, dutiable at 15 percent.
Defendant now seeks dismissal of the protests for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that they were not filed by a statutorily authorized party.1We agree that the protests must be dismissed for that reason.
Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930(19 U.S.C. § 1514) specifically provides that all decisions of the collector as to the rate and amount of duties chargeable and as to all exactions, and his liquidation of an entry, shall be final unless the importer, consignee, or agent of the person paying such charge or exaction shall file a protest.Considering the present situation, the official court papers in both protests show that the imported merchandise was purchased and imported by Shigoto Industries, Ltd. for its own account.The protests, however, in both cases were filed by "Shigoto International Corp."Shigoto International, it is to be added, is not just another name for Shigoto Industries, Ltd. but rather is a completely different and separate company.This is demonstrated by the following excerpt from the record (R. 2-3):
Q.Mr. Rubin, what is your capacity or your employment with Shigoto Industries, Inc.?
A.I am the president of the company.
Q.Are you associated with any other importing companies?
A.Yes; I am.
Q.Would you tell the court what they are?
A.They are three companies, Shigoto International, Shigoto Industries, and Sekai Manufacturing Company.
Q.Is Shigoto Industries a New York corporation?
A.All three of them are New York corporations.
Against this background, there is nothing in the record even remotely suggesting that Shigoto International Corp. acted at any time as the agent of the importer, Shigoto Industries, Ltd., for any purpose whatever.In sum, since the record fails to show that Shigoto International Corp. was the importer, the consignee or the agent of the person paying the charge, it has no standing to protest the action of the collector.See e.g., Abegg v. United States,71 Fed. 960(C.C. S.D.N.Y.1896);United States v. F. L. Kraemer & Co.,17 CCPA 448, T.D. 43879 (1930);Gibraltar Warehouses v. United States,68 Treas. Dec. 400, T.D. 47933(1935).It is true that the collector denied the present protests on the merits, but he had no authority to waive the jurisdictional requirement imposed by statute.E.g., United States v. Schefer,71 Fed. 959(C.C. S.D.N.Y.1896);Guggenheim Smelting Co. v. United States,112 Fed. 517(3d Cir.1901), cert. den.186 U.S. 485(1902);Allison v. United States,11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 297, T.D. 39126(1922).It is also true that by order of the court the protests were, without objection by the government, amended to include other claims.However, in the absence of a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Philip Morris USA v. US
...Customs to confer jurisdiction on this Court by treating the importer's protest against liquidation as a protest against reliquidation. Customs has no authority to waive a jurisdictional requirement imposed by statute. See
Shigoto Int'l Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust.Ct. 252, 253, C.D. 4199 (1971) (Customs' denial of a protest filed by an improper party did not confer The importer cites Webcor Elec. v. United States, 79 Cust.Ct. 137, C.D. 4725, 442 F.Supp. 95 (1977), in support of its... -
PRESTIGELINE (DIV. OF WEIMAN CO., INC.) v. US
...to court by the party allowed to do so under the law" (73 Cust.Ct. at page 150). Again, unlike the present situation, in Hersey of Canada, Ltd. v. United States, 406 F.2d 1394, 56 CCPA 64, C.A.D. 955 (1969) and
Shigoto International Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust.Ct. 252, C.D. 4199 (1971), cited by defendant, there was no showing that the importers in those cases or consignees had filed the actions under a Finally, in my recent opinion in Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United... -
Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States
...exaction". Fundamentally, of course, the court lacks jurisdiction over a protest filed by a party which does not fall within one of the authorized classes of persons specified in section 514.
Shigoto International Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust.Ct. 252, C.D. 4199 (1971). And protests which are a nullity cannot be amended. Heemsoth Kerner Corporation v. United States, 31 Cust.Ct. 113, C.D. 1554 (1953). In the decisions relied upon by plaintiff, cited supra, the courts havethe different names refer to two different and separate companies. Instead, it is undisputed that Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. merely amended its name, and is one and the same corporate party as Hancock-Gross, Inc. By contrast, in Shigoto International Corp., Judge Maletz held that the protests were jurisdictionally defective where the importer, Shigoto Industries, Ltd., and the protestant, Shigoto International Corp., were shown by testimony to be entirely different While the carelessness... -
South African Marine Corp., Ltd. v. United States
...proper party plaintiffs are defined in specific terms by statute, characterizing disputes over who may sue as "standing" problems may lead to confusion.7 However one characterizes the problem here, it remains one involving the statutory limits on who may sue and, consequently, what suits may be heard by the court.
Shigotoclearly supports the principle that such statutory proscriptions may not be waived by acts of omission of government agents, such as failure to reject a Statutory Eligibility253. The court further found that the fact that the protest was denied on the merits did not affect this result because the Government's agent could not waive the statutory standing requirement for protest (and, consequently, suit), which it deemed jurisdictional.6 Id.This court has used the term "standing" to characterize this statutory issue in other cases as well. See, e.g., Mohawk Recreation Products, Inc. v. United States, 77 Cust.Ct. 180, 423 F.Supp. 932 (1976).For plaintiff to bring a suit challenging the imposition of duties or fees, the suit must contest the denial of a valid protest filed by plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a), 2631(a) (1982). In Shigoto International Corp. v. United States, 66 Cust.Ct. 252, C.D. 4199 (1971), this court found, in a similar context, that the plaintiff lacked standing to protest a Customs decision because plaintiff was not among the parties listed in the statute as eligible to protest....