U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 169— COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE PROCEDURE

28 U.S.C. § 2639

Burden of proof; evidence of value

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, in any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade under section 515, 516, or 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, the administering authority, or the International Trade Commission is presumed to be correct. The burden of proving otherwise shall rest upon the party challenging such decision.(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title.(b) In any civil action described in section 1581(h) of this title, the person commencing the action shall have the burden of making the demonstration required by such section by clear and convincing evidence.(c) Where the value of merchandise or any of its components is in issue in any civil action in the Court of International Trade—(1) reports or depositions of consuls, customs officers, and other officers of the United States, and depositions and affidavits of other persons whose attendance cannot reasonably be had, may be admitted into evidence when served upon the opposing party as prescribed by the rules of the court; and(2) price lists and catalogs may be admitted in evidence when duly authenticated, relevant, and material.(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, § 301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1736.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Sections 515, 516, and 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), are classified to sections 1515, 1516, and 1516a, respectively, of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 2639, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 982; June 2, 1970, Pub. L. 91–271, title I, § 120, 84 Stat. 281, provided for retrial or rehearing, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–417. See section 2646 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Subsec. (a)(2) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after the 90th day after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 251 of this title.

Subsec. (b) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 96–417.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 488 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 2× “[16] Although Customs's decision "is presumed to be correct" on review, 28 U. S. C. § 2639 (a)(1), the CIT "may consider any new ground" even if not raised below, § 2638, and "shall make its determinations upon the basis of the record made before the court," rather than that…”
Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (Supp. V 1981); E.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Sur. for Carreon, Inc.) v. United States, 6 F.3d 763 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (1988). Finally, the United States argues that Customs’ discretion to grant one-year extensions of time for liquidation is only limited by the four-year time bar established in section 1504(d) and by the notice and reason requirements of section 1504(b).”
Universal Elec. Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (1994). Universal argues, however, that the presumption of correctness applies only when a factual dispute exists.”
Copperweld Corp. v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 552 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 3× “See 28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (1982). 8 Furthermore, although legitimate concerns against the use of the dumping margin have been expressed, they are insufficient to establish a legal bar to the exercise of discretion by a commissioner.”
Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. The United States, 880 F.2d 401 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “§ 2646 is substantively identical to the provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2639 , held in Torch, 509 F.2d at 1187 , to be jurisdictional, and (3) the trial court’s Rule 60(b) 4 does not “independently confer jurisdiction” because “no court rule can enlarge or restrict jurisdiction.”
Ugg Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 79 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (1988). To determine whether an importer has overcome the statutory presumption, the Court must consider whether “the government’s classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with the importer’s alternative.”
Goodman Mfg., L.P. v. United States, 69 F.3d 505 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “These statements reflect a commingling of two concepts: (1) deference to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute it administers; and (2) the statutory presumption, found in 28 U.S.C. § 2639 , that Customs’s decisions have a proper factual basis unless the opposing…”
Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “This step of interpreting the relevant classification term, as noted above, is a question of law to be decided independently by this court, without deference to Customs’ interpretation.”
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 612 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1). After reviewing the record, we agree with DSMC and the ITC that substantial evidence supports the views of the Commission on each of the matters raised by Appellants on appeal.”
Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 452 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 4× “(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2639 (a)(1) (1988)). 2 Consequently, “the party challenging the classification .”
North Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed.”
Show all 488 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) — 6 cases
China Nat'l Arts & Crafts Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 407 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1991).
SDI Tech. Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 895 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
A & a Intern., Inc. v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 263 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987).
Green Garden Produce, LLC v. United States, 2026 CIT 51 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).
E & S Freedman Assocs. v. United States, 12 Ct. Int'l Trade 304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.