Shigoto International Corp v. United States, C.D. 4199

CourtUnited States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Writing for the CourtMaletz
Citation66 Cust. Ct. 252
Decision Date13 April 1971
Docket NumberC.D. 4199
66 Cust. Ct. 252
C.D. 4199
United States Customs Court, First Division.
Decided April 13, 1971.

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

MALETZ, Judge:

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

Page 253

party.1 We 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Philip Morris USA v. US, Court No. 88-02-00070.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • July 6, 1989
    ...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 Cu......
  • South African Marine Corp., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 84-12-01757.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 6, 1986
    ...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 plaint......
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • December 12, 1975
    ...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 F......
  • Hancock Gross Mfg., Inc. v. United States, C. R. D. 75-6
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • September 29, 1975
    ...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. 15......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT