Legal Opinion
Pentax Corp. v. Myhra
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 31, 1995No. 94-35277PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
I. OVERVIEW
Pentax Corporation (Pentax) imported mismarked goods. Pentax admitted its error by letter to the United States Customs Service (Customs), seeking to limit its potential liability by qualifying for “prior disclosure” status under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(4). That statute requires the violator to tender any unpaid duties. Customs demanded that Pentax tender a ten percent marking duty required for mismarked goods. 19 U.S.C. § 1304(f). Pentax refused to tender any money claiming that no duty was unpaid.
Pentax brought this action in Montana District Court…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States of America, and Lummi Indian Tribe, Intervenor-Appellant v. State of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Trayco, Incorporated v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Pentax Corp. v. MyhraDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1994
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tikal Distributing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1997
- Pentax Corporation v. MyhraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995