Brotman v. United States

In this action, plaintiffs contend that the collector at the port of San Francisco failed to follow judgments rendered by this court, wherein duties upon alcoholic beverages lost in transit, as shown by the gaugers’ returns, verified by the importers’ affidavits, were ordered refunded. Joseph Abrams Co. v. United States, 19 Cust. Ct. 146, Abstract 51947; Traders Distributing Co. v. United States, 19 Cust. Ct. 147, Abstract 51949.

Counsel have submitted these cases on a stipulation reading as follows:

It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

1) The merchandise and the issues involved herein are similar in all respects to the facts and issues in Juillard Cockcroft Corp. v. US, Abstract 57670, and Baer v. US, Abstract 57671, wherein the court ordered the collector to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandate of the court in its original decision.

2) The records in said decided cases may be admitted in evidence herein and upon this stipulation these protests may be deemed to be submitted.

In view of this stipulation and on the authority of the decisions cited, judgment will be rendered for the plaintiffs, directing the collector to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandates of this court in its respective original decisions and to refund duties accordingly.

DISSENTING OPINION

I do not concur with my colleagues. This action is not properly before us. These plaintiffs are clearly aggrieved, but their remedy is not in the relief their protests seek.

They have protested reliquidations by the collector of certain entries, without his complying with the final judgments of this court, entered October 9, 1947. I find no authority in law for reliquidation by a collector after determination by this court on protest, save only a reliquidation in compliance with the mandate of the final judgment of this court. The reliquidations now before us are void and, therefore, not protestable on the merits.

*352When Congress created this court and conferred on it exclusive jurisdiction in the litigation of tariff matters, and relegated importers of such merchandise to the process of this court for redress against unlawful acts of collectors, it is not to be supposed that Congress intended to permit importers to be harassed, as these plaintiffs have been, by administrative defiance of final judgments, in this case entered 8 years ago.

The judgments of October 9, 1947, stand. They are final. They should be obeyed, and thus far they have not been obeyed. The collector should comply with them forthwith or stand in contempt of this court.