Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pentax Corp. v. Robison
Citations: 135 F.3d 760; 1998 WL 31838Docket: No. 96-1320
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; January 28, 1998; Federal Appellate Court
On September 17, 1997, the court reversed a decision by the United States Court of International Trade regarding a mismarking case involving camera equipment from China marked as originating from Hong Kong. The Court of International Trade had determined that Pentax Corporation owed approximately $5.2 million in marking duties due to violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592 and required this payment for prior disclosure treatment under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(4). The court confirmed its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1582(1). On the merits, it ruled that the plaintiffs—Pentax and associated companies—were not required to pay the 10 percent ad valorem marking duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1304(f) to qualify for prior disclosure. The court interpreted the causation requirement in 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) as needing but-for causation, finding that the government was not deprived of the marking duties due to the violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). The court stated that the act of mismarking could not be said to have deprived the government of these duties, and clarified the relationship between sections 1304(f) and 1592(d). Following this ruling, the government petitioned for rehearing, claiming the court overlooked false entry documents filed by Pentax, which they argued constituted an independent violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). The court granted the rehearing to amend its previous opinion regarding the entry papers but denied the government's request to treat the false entry documents as a separate basis for recovery of marking duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d). Pentax submitted false entry documents regarding the country of origin for imported goods, a fact acknowledged by the plaintiffs. To address this oversight, the previous opinion is amended to clarify that incorrect entry documents were submitted, indicating the goods were made in Hong Kong. Additionally, the term 'Commerce' is replaced with 'Customs' in two instances. Section 1592(c)(4) limits penalties under section 1592(c) if mismarking is reported to Customs. The court's April 2, 1996 order consolidated the claims into the enforcement action initiated by Customs, regardless of jurisdiction issues. The court declines to consider the government's claim that the submission of false documents constituted a separate violation of 19 U.S.C. 1592(a) for recovering marking duties under 19 U.S.C. 1592(d), as this theory was not presented during the appeal process. The court emphasizes that new theories cannot be addressed if not raised on appeal and assumes familiarity with the statutory analysis from the prior opinion. Section 1592(d) outlines the restoration of lawful duties if the U.S. is deprived due to violations, irrespective of monetary penalties.