NCJ Number
95417
Journal
Pace Law Review Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 203-241
Date Published
1983
Length
39 pages
Annotation
This article examines whether the small claims procedure should be part of the U.S. Customs Court.
Abstract
The matter of different and separate treatment of small claims has been raised with the Customs Court and before several committees of Congress. Trade groups of importers and customhouse brokers testified in favor of their proposed small claims procedures, contending that many valid claims against the Government were not litigated because the costs of pursuing a claim under the Custom Court's procedures were substantially greater than the amounts at issue. During the congressional hearings on the proposed small claims part of the Customs Court, repeated references were made to the small-tax-case procedure in the U.S. Tax Court as a model for the small claims part of the Customs Court. There are, however, several reasons why the Tax Court small-tax-case analogy may not be appropriate. For example, more than nine-tenths of all petitioner-litigants represent themselves pro se in the small tax cases. In the customs situation, the importers are almost always represented by customhouse brokers. Tax Court Rule 24 prohibits authorized agents from representing a taxpayer unless those agents are admitted to practice before Tax Court. The present full and formal procedure in the Custom Court is unnecessary for many potential appeals. The small claims procedure may be a viable option, unless it generates many more appeals of questionable merit. A total of 151 references are included.