Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. The United States Foreign-Trade Zones Board
United States District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
83 F.3d 397 (1996)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
The Foreign Trade Zones Act authorized the creation of zones within the United States that received special treatment under customs laws. The act also allowed the creation of subzones, which were foreign-trade zones created for a single company. Citgo Petroleum Corporation (Citgo) (plaintiff) sought to have one of its oil refineries designated a foreign-trade subzone. The United States Foreign-Trade Zones Board (board) (defendant) approved the request on the condition that Citgo pay duties on any oil used as fuel within the refinery. Citgo challenged the board’s decision, arguing that the board did not have the power to impose such conditions. Citgo also argued that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because the board had previously granted a subzone to another two refineries in Hawaii and Puerto Rico without imposing the same condition. The board argued that allowing Citgo to use duty-free oil within the refinery would be contrary to the public interest because it would give Citgo an unfair advantage over competitors. The United States Court of International Trade agreed with the board, holding that the board had the power to restrict subzone activities that were contrary to the public interest. Citgo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.