Slip Op. 02-17
_____
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
_____
THE HONORABLE JANE A. RESTANI, JUDGE
_____________________________________________
:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, :
CORP. :
:
Plaintiff, : Court No. 94-10-00625
:
v. :
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant. :
________________________________________________:
[No interest awarded on Harbor Maintenance Tax refunds made under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)]
Baker & McKenzie (Susan G. Braden, William D. Outman, II, Kevin M. O’Brien, Teresa A.
Gleason and Michael E. Murphy) for plaintiff.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Deputy Director, Todd M. Hughes, Assistant Director, Jeffrey A. Belkin, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice, for defendant.
FINAL ORDER
This matter was the original test case regarding interest on Harbor Maintenance Tax refunds.
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion of February 4, 2001 to lift stay and enter judgment.
After the court’s original judgment in favor of plaintiff herein, the Court of Appeals reversed
the part of the judgment finding interest owing under the applicable statute. See IBM v. United
States, 201 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2000), rev’g 22 CIT 519 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998), amended by Errata
dated June 9, 2000 (partial reversal substituted for remand). Plaintiff did not raise its constitutional
arguments (which this court did not reach) in its response brief in the appeal. After mandate issued,
plaintiff attempted to raise such issues here and defendant opposed the attempt. See Pl.’s Mem.
Supp. Summ. J. at 3; Def.’s Resp. at 4-7; Pl.’s Reply at 12-16. The court stayed this case pending
resolution of the constitutional issues in other cases. See Order dated June 4, 2001.
No party with a judgment for refund of Harbor Maintenance Taxes pursuant to 28
U.S.C.§1581(i) jurisdiction, and whose interest award depended on a favorable resolution of this
action, asked the court to amend such judgment to reference a different test case prior to partial
reversal in this matter, even though constitutional issues had not been placed squarely before the
appellate court. Thus, this remains the test case for all such judgments, and the court finds that this
matter should be completed at the earliest time possible.
The Court of Appeals did not remand this matter for the court to consider constitutional
issues after plaintiff’s sought reconsideration in the appellate court on such grounds. The appellate
court simply reversed the interest award aspect of the judgment. See IBM, 201 F.3d at 1374-75
(subsequent errata amending conclusion to reverse “[t]he portion of the judgment of the Court of
International Trade ordering interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2411 as owing on the principal amount
adjudged.”). Therefore, the court will not consider plaintiff’s March, 2001 motion for summary
judgment further. If the appellate court intended this court to consider the issue, the court would
deny any award of interest for the reasons stated in Swisher Int’l, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-
144 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 11, 2001).
2
If the Court of Appeals reverses Swisher or any other HMT interest case addressing
constitutional claims, it is up to it to recall the mandate in this matter, if possible. This court may
not amend the judgment of the appellate court.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion of February 4, 2002, to lift stay and enter judgment is granted
in part, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for award of interest is denied and this matter is
terminated.
___________________________
JANE A. RESTANI
Judge
DATED: New York, New York
This 21st day of February, 2002
3