Virgo Corp. v. Paiewonsky, 16,116
| Decision Date | 29 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16,116,No. 16,133,No. 16,374,16,116,16,133,16,374 |
| Citation | 6 V.I. 256 |
| Parties | VIRGO CORPORATION v. RALPH M. PAIEWONSKY, Governor, MORRIS F. deCASTRO, Director of the Budget and the GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Appellants MASTER TIME COMPANY, LTD. v. PERCY deJONGH, as Commissioner of the Department of Finance of the Government of the Virgin Islands, Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
See, also, 384 F.2d 569; cert. den. 390 U.S. 1041;
reh. den. 392 U.S. 917
In action by watch manufacturer challenging validity of Watch Production Act and validity of Governor's action in allocating quotas to watch manufacturers and administration of tax exemption and subsidy benefits under Industrial Incentive Act, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Gordon, J., 5 V.I. 342, 251 F.Supp. 279, ordered summary judgment as to Watch Production Quota Act and remanded case as to application for tax exemption and subsidy and denied motion for preliminary injunction. In proceeding for declaratory judgment that the Act was null and void, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Gordon, J., 5 V.I. 359, 254 F.Supp. 405, granted summary judgment declaring Act null and void. In proceeding on complaint seeking judgment invalidating Act, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Gordon, J., 5 V.I. 388, 255 F.Supp. 927, found that the Act was invalid. Appeals from proceeding judgments were consolidated. The Court of Appeals, Maris, Circuit Judge, held that the portion of the Virgin Islands Organic Act of 1936 providing that no new export duty shall be levied except by Congress was not operative in 1965 and 1966 to render invalid the enactment of the Watch Production Act, that the Governor'sallocation of quotas was valid, and that Governor's denial of tax exemption and subsidy benefits was valid.
Judgments and orders appealed from reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaints.
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
[COPY RIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
FRANCISCO CORNEIRO, ESQ., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellants in Nos. 16,116 and 16,133
WILLIAM SIMON, ESQ., Washington, D.C., U.S.A., for appellee in No. 16,116 and 16,374
RONALD H. TONKIN, ESQ., Christiansted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, for appellee in No. 16,133
BRUCE MACGIBBON, ESQ., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, for appellant in No. 16,374
Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and MARIS and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION OF THE COURT
These are appeals by the defendants from judgments entered against them in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. The appeals at our docket Nos. 16116, 16133 and 16374 involve the validity of the Watch Production Act of 1965, as originally enacted and as amended, 33 V.I.C. §§ 511-518, which, inter alia, imposed taxes on the production of watches in the Virgin Islands and also involve the validity of the Governor's action in allocating quotas to watch manufacturers under the Act. The appeal at our docket No. 16374 raises, also, the question whether the Governor acted arbitrarily in denying the plaintiff Virgo Corporation tax exemption and subsidy benefits under the Virgin Islands industrial incentive program, 33 V.I.C. §§ 4001 et seq.
Virgo Corporation, a Virgin Islands corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling watches, filed a complaint in the district court, at Civil Docket No. 165-1965, Division of St. Croix, against the Government of the Virgin Islands, its Governor, and certain of its otherofficers, and Atlantic Time Products Corporation. The complaint set out two separate claims for relief. The first was for a determination that the Governor had acted arbitrarily in making an allocation to Atlantic Time Products Corporation, a newly established watch manufacturer, from the reserve quota of 300,000 units established under the Watch Production Act while denying Virgo an allocation of 45,000 additional watches from the reserve quota to relieve it from severe financial hardship. Virgo sought a judgment declaring that the Governor's allocation of 240,000 units to Atlantic Time was invalid and that Virgo was entitled to the allocation of the additional 45,000 units which it had requested. In the alternative, Virgo asked that the entire watch production program and the taxes imposed by the Watch Production Act of 1965 be declared invalid. Virgo's second claim for relief was for a judgment declaring it entitled to tax exemption and subsidy benfits under the Virgin Islands industrial incentive program, 33 V.I.C. §§ 4001 et seq. The district court, after hearing, filed its opinion holding the Watch Production Act of 1965 to be invalid on the ground that it imposed a new export duty in violation of section 36 of the Organic Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1816-1817. In respect to count two of the complaint, the court concluded that the case should be remanded to the Virgin Islands Industrial Incentive Board with directions that recommendations which the Board deemed proper should be made to the Governor within 30 days, that the Governor should act thereon within a reasonable time thereafter; and that if no action was taken within the time prescribed, Virgo could seek an order compelling the defendants to grant tax exemption and subsidy benefits to it. 5 V.I. 342, 251 F.Supp. 279. The court entered an order pursuant to its opinion on March 16, 1966 from which the defendant appealed to this court at our docket No. 15894. That appeal was, however, dismissed by this court as pre-mature since the Industrial Incentive Board had not yet acted and a final decision on all the claims for relief had accordingly not yet been rendered.
By the Watch Production Act of August 30, 1965,1 the Legislature sought to discourage through taxation the production of watches2 destined for ultimate shipment to the United States in amounts in excess of one-ninth of the annual consumption of watches in the United States. For the six months period from October 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966, the Governor of the Virgin Islands was authorized by the Act to assign to watch manufacturers in the Virgin Islands production quotas totaling 1,800,000 units. A tax of $2.50 per watch was imposed on all watches produced in the Virgin Islands upon which tax a credit of $2.47 was to be allowed in the case of all watches manufactured within the quota allocated and watches not destined for the United States. The Governor was authorized to allocate 1,500,000 of the total quota of 1,800,000 units to Virgin Islands manufacturers in accordance with a formula set out in the Act. The remaining 300,000 units were to be reserved to relieve severe financial hardship, and to permit allocation to new manufacturers. The Watch Production Act of 1965 was amended by the Act of March 22, 1966.3 Under the Act, as amended, the tax of $2.50 per watch was imposed upon all watches produced in the Virgin Islands in excess of the quotas to be allocated by the Governor for manufacture by Virgin Islands manufacturers, which were to aggregate one-ninth of the total annual consumption of watches within the customs area of the United States. Watches manufactured within these quotas were to be taxed at 3 cents per watch only.
After the passage of the Act of 1966 Virgo brought a second suit in the district court against the Government of the Virgin Islands, its Governor, and the Director of the Budget, at Civil Docket No. 37-1966, Division of St. Croix, for a judgment declaring the amended Act invalid in that it violated section 36 of the Organic Act of 1936 and section 28(d) of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. The district court held that the statute, as amended, continued the export duty in violation of section 36 of the Organic Act of 1936. 5 V.I. 359, 254 F.Supp. 405. Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of Virgo on June 3,1966 and an appeal by the defendants at our docket No. 16116 followed.
In compliance with the district court's order of March 16, 1966, the Virgin Islands Industrial Incentive Board held a hearing and recommended to the Governor that partial tax exemption be granted to Virgo. This recommendation the Governor disapproved, however, and he denied Virgo's application for benefits under the industrial incentive program. Virgo then moved in the district court for an order to compel the defendants to grant it the benefits it had applied for. The district court held that it was the legislative intent that tax exemption and subsidies be made available to Virgo if it complied with the requirements of the statute and that after such compliance no discretionary power remained in the Governor to deny it benefits under the program. 5 V.I. 417, 259 F.Supp. 26. Accordingly, on November 7, 1966 the court entered an order directing the Governor to issue a certificate granting Virgo the same tax exemptions and subsidy benefits which had been granted to four other watch companies. The defendants thereupon took an appeal at our docket No. 16374 from the orders of March 16, 1966 and November 7, 1966.
Master Time Company, Ltd., a Virgin Islands corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of watches, brought suit against the Commissioner of the Departmentof Finance of the Government of the Virgin Islands, at Civil Docket No. 142-1965, Division of St. Croix, for a judgment declaring the Watch Production Act invalid as imposing a prohibited export duty upon goods coming into the United States. On the basis of its conclusions in the actions brought by Virgo, the district court entered judgment in this action in favor of Master Time. 5 V.I. 388, 255 F. Supp. 927. The defendant then took the appeal at our docket No. 16133.
The three appeals now before us, insofar as they relate to the Watch Production Act, raise similar questions. They were consolidated for argument and will be considered together in this opinion. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rental Equip. Co. v. Meridian Eng'g Co.
-
Rental Equipment Co., Inc. v. Meridian Engineering Co., Inc.
... ... not, since it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Devcon International Corp., a Florida corporation, and thus is not owned by Virgin Islanders ... Virgo Corporation v. Paiewonsky, 384 F.2d 569, 6 V.I. 256 (3d Cir. 1967), cert ... ...
-
ANTILLES INDUS., INC. v. Government of Virgin Islands
...the taxpayer arises. See Act No. 224, § 1(e), V.I. Sess.Laws (1957); Act No. 798, T. 33 V.I.C. § 4001(b) (1962); Virgo Corp. v. Paiewonsky, 6 V.I. 256, 286-87 (3rd Cir. 1967); Vitex Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 5 V.I. 429, 435 (3rd Cir. 1964); Pentheny, Ltd. v. Govern......
- Gannet Corp. v. Stevens