Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH & Co. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
885 F.2d 858 (1989)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH & Company (Goldhofer) (plaintiff) imported semitrailers from Germany through the port of Norfolk, Virginia. Due to a clerical error, the United States Customs Service (customs) (defendant) entered the wrong mailing address for Goldhofer in its files. When Goldhofer’s entry was liquidated, customs posted a bulletin notice of liquidation and also sent a courtesy copy by mail, which never reached Goldhofer because it was mailed to the wrong address. Upon discovering the mistake, customs issued a new courtesy copy to Goldhofer, sending it to the right address. Goldhofer filed a protest 179 days after the first notice of liquidation, but 88 days after the second notice of liquidation that was mailed to the right address. Customs denied the protest because it was not filed within 90 days of the original liquidation as required by law. Goldhofer challenged customs’ denial, arguing that failure to provide courtesy notice of the liquidation violated constitutional-due-process requirements, thus invalidating the first liquidation notice. The United States Court of International Trade entered summary judgment in favor of customs, and Goldhofer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Michel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.