United States v. HM Young Associates, Inc., Customs Appeal No. 5532.

• Citation: 505 F.2d 721
• Decision Date: 21 November 1974
• Docket Number: Customs Appeal No. 5532.
• Parties: The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. H. M. YOUNG ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee.
• Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

505 F.2d 721

The UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. H. M. YOUNG ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee.

Customs Appeal No. 5532.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

November 21, 1974.

Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrew P. Vance, Chief, Customs Section, Bernard J. Babb, New York City, for the United States.

Lawrence J. West, Chicago, Ill., Rode & Qualey, New York City, attorneys of record, for appellee; Ellsworth F. Qualey, New York City, of counsel.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, LANE and MILLER, Judges.

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

The United States appeals from the judgment¹ of the Customs Court which granted appellee's motion for summary judgment and denied appellant's cross-motion for summary judgment, 69 Cust. Ct. 155, C.D. 4388, 349 F.Supp. 1007 (1972). We affirm.

The imported merchandise consists of elastic fabric, described as "COTTON TISSUES (Waistband-Elastic)." The importer, H. M. Young Associates, Inc., of New York, purchased the subject merchandise from the manufacturer, HCH Kalbskopf of West Germany, in 1965 at an invoiced price of 62 cents per yard F.O.B., and the merchandise was so entered. It was resold to Jaymar-Ruby, Inc., which used the fabric in the manufacture of trousers. Jaymar-Ruby, Inc., paid patent royalty and trade-mark certification fees to extraneous parties who were neither importers nor manufacturers. Appraisement was made under constructed value by adding to the invoiced price of 62 cents per yard the sum of 36 cents, representing patent royalty and trademark fees of 24 cents and 12 cents, respectively. The parties agree that constructed value is the proper basis for appraisal. The merchandise, the parties, and the facts are the same as those involved in H. M. Young Associates, Inc. v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 642, R.D. 11695 (1970), wherein the Customs Court held that the fees paid by Jaymar-Ruby, Inc., were not part of constructed value and that the importer was entitled, under the separability rule, to rely on the presumption of correctness attaching to the remainder of the appraisement.

Noting the identity of the basis of appraisement, the merchandise, the parties, and the issues herein with those in H. M. Young Associates, supra, the Customs Court cited the doctrine of collateral estoppel as requiring the same result here. The court rejected appellant's contention that an intervening change in the law respecting the application of the separability doctrine to constructed value had occurred.

OPINION

Because neither party has raised the question of whether collateral estoppel may apply in reappraisement cases, we need consider only whether the Customs Court was justified in its application of collateral estoppel in this particular action.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel rests on the public policy of precluding repetitious lawsuits. Three questions must be answered affirmatively to find appellant collaterally estopped herein by the final judgment in H. M. Young Associates, supra: (1) Were the issues decided in the prior action identical with those presented in the instant action? (2) Was there a final judgment on the merits in the prior action? (3) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party, or in privity with a party, to the prior action? Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948).

That the answer to questions (2) and (3) is clearly "yes" is not disputed. Appellant argues that the answer to question (1) must be "no."

Appellant maintains that our treatment of the separability rule in United States v. Pan American Import Corp., 57 CCPA 134, C.A.D. 993, 428 F. 2d 848 (1970), introduced an intervening change in the law which raises an issue not litigated in H. M. Young Associates, supra. That issue is whether the importer proved that the undisputed portion of the appraisement represented all the elements of constructed value.

We agree that the issues in this case are identical to those litigated in H. M. Young Associates, supra, and with the view of the trial judge that our opinion in Pan American did not require a contrary result. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Customs Court. However, we are compelled by the trial judge's one-sentence dismissal of Pan American and by the vigorous nature of appellant's attack on application of the rule of separability, to say more.

The trial judge distinguished Pan American on the ground that it involved export value, whereas the present case involves constructed value. Though we join his apparent distaste for a tendency to confuse differing segments of the statute, we note that H. M. Young Associates, supra, on which the trial judge based his application of collateral estoppel, rested on two cases² involving export value.

Appellant makes no candid frontal attack on the separability rule itself. Nonetheless, appellant's position herein, if sustained, would result in emasculation of that rule.

As we said in Pan American, the phrases "separable appraisement" and "separability rule" were succinctly explained in United States v. Supreme Merchandise Co., 48 Cust.Ct. 714, A.R.D. 145 (1962), as follows:

If ex-factory prices and other charges are separately stated on the invoices and the appraiser's finding of value is expressed in terms of the invoice unit prices, plus the questioned charges, the appraisement is deemed to be separable. United States v. Dan Brechner et al., 38 Cust.Ct. 719, A.R.D. 71 1957; United States v. Gitkin Co., * * *; Valley Knitting Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 44 Cust.Ct. 599, Reap.Dec. 9627 1960. Under the rule expressed in United States v. Fritzsche Bros., Inc., 35 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 60, C.A.D. 371 1947, a party to a reappraisement proceeding may challenge one or more of the elements entering into an appraisement, while relying upon the presumption of correctness of the appraiser's return as to all other elements, whenever the challenged items do not disturb the effect of the remainder of the appraisement. Such is the case in the instance of an appraisement at ex-factory-plus-charges value, and the charges may be disputed without the necessity of proof that the ex-factory prices comply with the statutory definition of export value. United States v. Dan Brechner et al., supra.

The separability rule is a salutary one. In United States v. Bud Berman Sportswear, Inc., 55 CCPA 28, C.A.D. 929 (1967), we described it as a "framework of convenience for the analysis of disputed appraisements." While clearly productive of procedural convenience, the rule is also rooted in fairness. In every case of disputed appraisement the importer confronts, and the government enjoys, a presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser's valuation and all items therein. Sec. 501, Tariff Act of 1930, 28 U.S.C. § 2635. When the appraisement is separable and the importer challenges less than all of its separate items, it would not only be wasteful of judicial time to require the importer to prove the correctness of presumptively correct and unchallenged items, it would be unfair and incongruous. Absent the separability rule, the courts, the government, and importers would all undergo an anomalous process in which plaintiff would undertake to prove the correctness of unchallenged actions of defendant, while defendant, presumably, would abandon the presumption of correctness and attempt to prove its own unchallenged actions incorrect. To require an importer facing a separable appraisement to "challenge all or challenge nothing" seems manifestly unfair, not only to the importer, but also to the courts and to the society, which must be taxed to pay for a portion of every litigious process in which the government participates. In this sense, the separability rule, like the doctrine of collateral estoppel and other procedural rules, is grounded in public policy. Collateral estoppel reduces the number of lawsuits. Separability reduces the length and...