United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.

Last updated

United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 11, 1999
Decided April 21, 1999
Full case nameUnited States v. Haggar Apparel Company
Citations526 U.S. 380 ( more )
119 S. Ct. 1392; 143 L. Ed. 2d 480
Holding
The statutes authorizing customs classification regulations are consistent with the usual rule that regulations of an administering agency warrant judicial deference applied under Chevron analysis.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by unanimous (parts I, II, III); Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Breyer (part IV).
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
19 CFR § 10.16; 19 U.S.C.   § 1202

United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court holding that Chevron deference is appropriate for regulations issued by Customs on behalf of the Treasury. The statutes authorizing customs classification regulations were found consistent with the usual rule that regulations of an administering agency warrant judicial deference; and nothing in the regulation in question persuaded the Court that the Customs and Border Patrol intended the regulation to have some lesser force and effect. The statutory scheme did not support the importer's argument that the regulation only applied to customs officers themselves as opposed to the adjudication of importers' refund suits in the Court of International Trade. The Customs Service (which is within the US Treasury Department) is charged with fixing duties applicable to imported goods under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Contents

Facts

Haggar Apparel Co., the respondent, designs, manufactures, and markets apparel for men. The matter arose from a refund proceeding for duties imposed on men's trousers shipped by Haggar to the United States from an assembly plant it controlled in Mexico. The fabric had been cut in the United States and then shipped to Mexico, along with the thread, buttons, and zippers necessary to complete the garments. There the trousers were sewn and reshipped to the United States. If that had been the full extent of it, there would not have been a dispute, for if there were mere assembly without other steps, all agree the imported garments would have been eligible for the duty exemption Haggar claimed. [1]

The Government claimed that the trousers were permapressed in Mexico. This process involved baking, which the Customs Service claimed was a process in addition to assembly, and as such denied Haggar a duty exemption. Haggar claimed the baking was simply part of the assembly process, or, in the words of the controlling statute, an "operation incidental to the assembly process." [2] Haggar's claim was difficult because Customs had issued an administrative regulation that deemed all permapressing operations as an additional step in manufacture, not part of assembly. The regulation had been adopted in 1975 by the Commissioner of Customs upon approval by the Treasury Department, after notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Procedural posture

After being denied the duty exemption, Haggar brought suit in the Court of International Trade ("CIT"), which declined to find the regulation controlling and ruled in favor of Haggar. On review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to analyze the regulation with Chevron deference, and affirmed the CIT's ruling.

Haggar's arguments

Haggar advanced two sets of arguments in contending that Chevron analysis should not apply to the regulation. First, Haggar claimed that the regulation was limited in application to customs officers themselves and was not intended to govern the adjudication of importers' refund suits in the CIT. Second, relying on the authority and jurisdiction of the CIT, Haggar argued that even if Treasury did intend the regulation to bear on the determination of refund suits, the CIT had the power to interpret the tariff statute without giving the usual deference to regulations issued by the administering agency.

Decision

The Supreme Court found no support for the assertion that the statute only bound customs officers' classifications, and not the importer's themselves. Rather, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to establish and promulgate rules and regulations for the classification and assessment of duties. Haggar tried to argue that this meant that the Secretary was only charged with ensuring that classifications were consistent among various points of entry, but the Court disagreed.

The Court also ruled that the CIT must, when appropriate, give regulations Chevron deference. The Court noted that as early as 1809, Chief Justice Marshall had written in United States v. Vowell that for customs cases "if the question had been doubtful, the court would have respected the uniform construction which it is understood has been given by the treasury department ... upon similar questions."

See also

Footnotes

  1. United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 384 (1999).
  2. Subheading 9802.00.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 19 U.S.C. 1202.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in the United States</span> United States tax codes

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP.

United States federal administrative law encompasses statutes, regulations, rules, common law rulings, and directives issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, that together define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always directly perform their constitutional responsibilities. Specialized powers are therefore delegated to an agency, board, or commission. These administrative governmental bodies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Federal Claims</span> Court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It was established by statute in 1982 as the United States Claims Court, and took its current name in 1992. The court is the successor to trial division of the United States Court of Claims, which was established in 1855.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty-free shop</span> Type of retail outlet

A duty-free shop is a retail outlet whose goods are exempt from the payment of certain local or national taxes and duties, on the requirement that the goods sold will be sold to travelers who will take them out of the country, who will then pay duties and taxes in their destination country. Which products can be sold duty-free vary by jurisdiction, as well as how they can be sold, and the process of calculating the duty or refunding the duty component.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Made in USA</span> Phrase indicating that something was produced in the United States

A Made in USA mark is a country of origin label affixed to homegrown, American-made products that indicates the product is "all or virtually all" domestically produced, manufactured and assembled in the United States of America. The label is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), was one of a group of the first Insular Cases decided by the US Supreme Court.

<i>National Cable & Telecommunications Assn v. Brand X Internet Services</i> 2005 United States Supreme Court case

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

Tax-free shopping (TFS) is the buying of goods in another country or state and obtaining a refund of the sales tax which has been collected by the retailer on those goods. The sales tax may be variously described as a sales tax, goods and services tax (GST), value added tax (VAT), or consumption tax.

The federal telephone excise tax is a statutory federal excise tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code in the United States under 26 U.S.C. § 4251 on amounts paid for certain "communications services". The tax was to be imposed on the person paying for the communications services but, under 26 U.S.C. § 4291, is collected from the customer by the "person receiving any payment for facilities or services" on which the tax is imposed.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the issue of when Chevron deference should be applied. In an 8–1 majority decision, the Court determined that Chevron deference applies when Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law.

United States v. Jordan, 113 U.S. 418 (1885), was a Supreme Court of the United States case regarding an Act of Congress that involved tax refunds. Specifically, it provided for the refunding to the persons therein named of the amount of taxes assessed upon and collected from them contrary to the provisions of the regulations therein mentioned. In other words, pay to each of such persons the sum set opposite his name, each of them is entitled to be paid the whole of that sum, and no discretion is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury or in any court to determine whether the sum specified was or was not the amount of a tax assessed contrary to the provisions of such regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal Malaysian Customs Department</span> Malaysian Government department

The Royal Malaysian Customs Department is a government department body under the Malaysian Ministry of Finance. RMCD functions as the country's main indirect tax collector, facilitating trade and enforcing laws. The top management of JKDM is led by the Director General of Customs and assisted by 3 deputies, namely, the Deputy Director General of Customs Enforcement/Compliance Division, the Deputy Director General of Customs Customs/Inland Tax Division and the Deputy Chief Director of Customs Management Division. The Royal Malaysian Customs Department consists of several divisions, namely the Enforcement Division, the Inland Tax Division, the Compliance Division, the Customs Division, and the Technical Services Division.

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum to do business" in Congress. Justice David Brewer delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations on the United States Senate and House of Representatives when determining their rules of proceedings. In particular, the Court held that it fell within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying whether a majority of their members is present, as required for a quorum under Article I of the Constitution.

The United States Customs Modernization Act, amended title 19 U.S.C. 1508, 1509 and 1510, formally Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, commonly known as the "Mod Act", amended the Tariff Act of 1930 and related laws.

Mayo Foundation v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Treasury Department regulation on the grounds that the courts should defer to government agencies in tax cases in absence of an unreasonable decision on the part of the agency.

The United States imposes tariffs on imports of goods. The duty is levied at the time of import and is paid by the importer of record. Customs duties vary by country of origin and product. Goods from many countries are exempt from duty under various trade agreements. Certain types of goods are exempt from duty regardless of source. Customs rules differ from other import restrictions. Failure to properly comply with customs rules can result in seizure of goods and criminal penalties against involved parties. The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces customs rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Customs</span> Agency of the Philippine government

The Bureau of Customs is a Philippine government agency under the Department of Finance. The Bureau of Customs was established on February 6, 1902 by the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands of the United States of America, during the American Colonial Era of the Philippines.

Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.