CF Industries, Inc. v. United States , 26 Ct. Int'l Trade 1329 ( 2002 )

Slip Op. 02-138
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
_________________________________
:
CF INDUSTRIES, INC. :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Court No. 02-00281
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant. :
:
________________________________ :
[Harbor Maintenance Tax on domestic shipments is not unconstitutional under The Port
Preference or Uniformity Clauses.]
Dated: November 26, 2002
McKenna Long & Aldridge L.L.P. (Peter Buck Feller and Daniel G. Jarcho) for
plaintiff.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice
(Jeanne E. Davidson, Todd M. Hughes, and Jeffrey A. Belkin), Richard McManus Office
of General Counsel, United States Customs Service, of counsel, for defendant.
OPINION
RESTANI, Judge:
This action seeking refunds of Harbor Maintenance Taxes (“HMT”) on domestic
shipments is before the court on defendant’s USCIT Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss and
plaintiff’s Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
C OURT N O. 02-00281 P AGE 2
Plaintiff CF Industries is a Florida manufacturer of fertilizer. Plaintiff’s fertilizer
is shipped to Davant, Louisiana where it is placed on river barges. Shipments loaded or
unloaded at Davant, Louisiana are subject to HMT. Plaintiff paid such taxes. There is no
dispute that plaintiff’s suit is timely and that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1581(i).
The issues of law before the court are no different than those presented in
previously concluded suits by importers. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Thomson
Multimedia, Inc. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002), the court
grants defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denies plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. There is no significant argument raised by plaintiff here
that was not considered by the court in that case.
The court notes specifically that its reliance on United States v. Ptasynski, 462
U.S. 74 (1983), in finding no violation of the Port Preference Clause and Uniformity
Clause of the Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 6 and §8, cl. 1) is not undermined by
plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish that case here. The fact that the United States advised
the Supreme Court in its briefs that no windfall profits would accrue to certain Alaskan
oil producers and thus, the tax exemption could have been accomplished in other ways,
does not alter the fact that the tax exemption was defined in geographic terms. The
holding of Ptasynski is not as narrow as plaintiff contends. Furthermore, the fact remains
that, but for the applicable HMT exemption, the HMT would discriminate against
C OURT N O. 02-00281 P AGE 3
domestic shipments to and from Alaska and Hawaii, two states which are not contiguous
to the other forty-eight states. When drafting these clauses to address specific problems,
the founding fathers knew nothing of this unique geographic expansion of the United
States and cannot be said to have intended to prohibit the remedial measures challenged
here. In practical terms, the exemptions help to avoid preferences and promote
uniformity.
Judgment will be entered for the United States.
__________________________
Jane A. Restani
JUDGE
Dated: New York, New York.
This 26th day of November, 2002.