Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States

8 Citing cases

  1. Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States

    667 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    February 4, 1982. [Original Opinion as Modified by Denial of Petition for Rehearing, see 657 F.2d 1214.] [2] ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING [3] MARKEY, Chief Judge, with whom RICH, Judge, joins, dissenting.

  2. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. U.S.

    735 F. Supp. 1059 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that Customs' failure to include provisions required by law in denial letter to Plaintiff was still harmless error because plaintiff did not plead any prejudice

    Plaintiff has further requested that if the statute of limitations is found to be a bar to this action, the Court should find that the faulty notice operated to toll it. Plaintiff's Opposition Brief at 7. In Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA 1, 657 F.2d 1214 (1981), cited by plaintiff, the Court stated that a statute of limitations may be "tolled under certain circumstances not inconsistent with the legislative purpose" even where there is no tolling provision in the statute itself. Id. at 8, 657 F.2d at 1219 (citations omitted).

  3. Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. U.S.

    812 F. Supp. 222 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)   Cited 3 times

    (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff relies on the court's holding in Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 657 F.2d 1214 (CCPA 1981), modified, 667 F.2d 1017 (1982), and claims that under the ruling of this case, the limitations period of ninety days should be tolled from May 25, 1990, the date of liquidation, until May 30, 1990, the date Sea-Land received the letter from Customs because it was the final agency action. In Farrell Lines, plaintiff filed a supplemental petition, and it was held that the ninety-day period of limitations for filing a protest of liquidation was tolled from the date the shipbuilder filed the supplemental petition until notice was given of the petition's denial.

  4. Penrod Drilling Co. v. U.S.

    727 F. Supp. 1463 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989)   Cited 11 times

    Customs Regulation 19 C.F.R. ยง 4.14 provides the avenue through which a party may seek remission or refund of duties for vessel repairs. See Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA 1, 4-5, C.A.D. 1268, 657 F.2d 1214, 1217 (1981). Under the regulation, a party may file an application for relief within sixty days of arrival of the vessel, for either remission of duties or for the treatment of an item or a repair expense as dutiable under ยง 1466(a).

  5. US JVC Corp. v. United States

    15 F. Supp. 2d 906 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)   Cited 9 times
    Holding equitable tolling of 19 U.S.C. ยง 1514's ninety-day statute of limitations was inappropriate because that statute provided that absent protests, decisions by Customs Service were "final and conclusive"

    See, e.g., United States v. Dalm 494 U.S. 596, 608, 110 S.Ct. 1361, 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 841, 106 S.Ct. 2224, 90 L.Ed.2d 841 (1986); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Boe, 64 C.C.P.A. 11, 15-16, 543 F.2d 151, 154-55; John S. Phipps v. United States, 22 C.C.P.A. 595, 602 (1935) ("Whatever may be our views as to the equities of the case before us, our jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Customs Court is limited by statutory provisions, and such provisions must be observed."). The decision in Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. 1, 657 F.2d 1214 (1981), is the only noteworthy exception and the validity of its holding is, at best, unclear. In Farrell Lines, the plaintiff sought remission of duties that Customs assessed on repairs made on an American vessel while it was overseas.

  6. Former Employees of Westmoreland v. U.S., (Int'l Trade 1986)

    650 F. Supp. 1021 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)   Cited 4 times
    Finding no correlation between application of one-year qualifying rule with which workers petitioning for trade adjustment assistance must comply and Secretary's duty to inform under section 2275

    One of the predecessors to our Court of Appeals recognized the necessity of focusing on Congressional intent in this area, and allowed tolling with respect to an administrative review period. Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA 1, 6, 657 F.2d 1214, 1218 (1981). The discussion which follows demonstrates that tolling would be inconsistent with Congressional intent, whether or not the administrative limitations period impacts on sovereign immunity or jurisdiction.

  7. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. United States

    643 F. Supp. 1128 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986)   Cited 6 times
    Permitting protest in non-drawback claim context where Customs made filing impossible

    The subsequent inclusion of those entries on a document entitled "amended protest" was sufficient to inform the Customs Service of plaintiff's objection to classification. United States v. Fred Gretsch Mfg. Co., Inc., 26 CCPA 267 C.A.D. 26 (1938); American Export Lines v. United States, 85 Cust.Ct. 20, C.D. 4864 (1980), aff'd 69 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 1268, 657 F.2d 1214 (1981). The administrative treatment of the twenty-one entries raises an issue of classification and an issue with respect to the assessment of duties on the one entry which was unarguably protested in a timely manner.

  8. Wally Packaging, Inc. v. United States, (1984)

    578 F. Supp. 1408 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that equitable tolling was not available where plaintiff had received from agency notice of adverse determination and of filing deadline but chose to defer filing suit

    In Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981), reh. denied, 451 U.S. 1032, 101 S.Ct. 3023, 69 L.Ed.2d 401 (1981), the Supreme Court again found equitable estoppel was not available vis-รก-vis the government, but the Court did not preclude the possibility of its application in another case. On the other hand, in Farrell Lines, Inc. v. United States, 69 C.C.P.A. ___, 657 F.2d 1214 (1981), reh. denied, ___ C.C.P.A. ___, 667 F.2d 1017 (1982), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that the applicable statute of limitations was tolled in a case involving a protest of duties assessed on foreign repairs of a ship. In Farrell, the shipbuilder failed to file a timely protest because both the shipbuilder and the Customs Service were genuinely confused as to the proper procedures for administrative review.