United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 10 (1999)

Page:   Index   Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Cite as: 526 U. S. 380 (1999)

Opinion of the Court

are charged with administering the adopted schedules applicable on the date of importation. This also is the position of the Government, for it acknowledged at oral argument that it is for the Treasury Department and the Customs Service, not for the USTR or ITC, to issue regulations entitled to judicial deference in the interpretation of the tariff schedules. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14.

Respondent further cites a portion of the regulation and argues that the Customs Service itself views its regulatory authority as limited to controlling its own agents' classification decisions, without affecting the course of later proceedings. It cites subsection (a) of 19 CFR 10.11 (1998), which introduces 10.16 and the other classification regulations adopted at the same time. Section 10.11(a) provides that "[t]he definitions and regulations that follow are promulgated to inform the public of the constructions and interpretations that the United States Customs Service shall give to relevant statutory terms and to assure the impartial and uniform assessment of duties upon merchandise claimed to be partially exempt from duty . . . at the various ports of entry." It further provides that "[n]othing in these regulations purports or is intended to restrict the legal right of importers or others to a judicial review of the matters contained therein." Ibid.

This language, in our view, does not suffice to displace the usual rule of Chevron deference. Subsections (a) and (b) of 10.11 together serve to introduce the two kinds of regulations which follow. Section 10.11(b) advises that a refund claimant must comply with both the substantive terms of the statute and with certain "documentary requirements" set forth in 10.24. If the importer fails to comply with the documentary requirements, it is foreclosed from judicial review of the classification decision. 10.11(b). In contrast, subsection (a) recites that nothing in the substantive classification regulations "purports or is intended to restrict the legal right . . . to a judicial review of the matters contained

389

Page:   Index   Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007