NATIONAL LUGGAGE SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION A/K/A NATIONAL LUGGAGE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
REEDY FORWARDING COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
National Luggage Services challenges a summary judgment requiring it to reimburse Reedy Forwarding Company for additional customs duties paid on imported merchandise. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Reedy, as the party liable under its customs bond, was entitled to reimbursement despite National's instruction not to pay and dispute over the tariff classification.
The court held that Reedy was entitled to summary judgment for the $3,703.47 in additional duties. Under its bond with the U.S. Customs Service, Reedy was clearly liable for the additional duty. The court noted that National had the option to post a superseding bond but failed to do so.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate when the determination of liability hinges on the interpretation of written instruments and their legal effect.
[2] A party who posts a bond with the U.S. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under its bond with the U.S. Customs Service, Reedy clearly was liable for the additional duty and we find the trial judge was correct in granting summary judgment for Reedy.”
Establishes that Reedy's liability under the customs bond was clear and appropriate for summary judgment resolution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReedy acted as importer of record and customs broker for National's importation of merchandise from Europe. Customs initially assessed a 10% tariff ($…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, National Luggage Services, Inc., seeks reversal of a final summary judgment for $3,703.47 plus costs in an action by appellee, Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc., to recover the additional amount of duty paid to the U.S. Customs Service on behalf of National.
Pursuant to National’s instructions, Reedy acted as importer of record and broker for the importation of certain merchandise from Europe. Upon arrival in the United States, immediate release of the merchandise was made possible because Reedy had posted an Immediate Delivery and Consumption Entry Bond with the U.S. Customs Service. Reedy sent National an invoice for services rendered which included $963.34 for import duties. National paid this duty and subsequently Customs demanded an additional duty of $3,703.47 on the grounds that the merchandise was subject to a 50% tariff rather than a 10% tariff as it consisted of products from Hungary and East Germany and not, as they were labeled, products from Switzerland. National contested the demand claiming that there should only be a 10% tariff levied on that half of the merchandise which consisted of products from Switzerland, West Germany or Italy. National instructed Reedy not to pay the additional duty; nevertheless, Reedy paid Customs the $3,703.47. Reedy contended that as nominal consignee of the merchandise, Customs looked to its bond as security and if payment was not made, Customs would attach the bond posted to guarantee such payment. When National refused to reimburse the $3,703.47, Reedy filed for recovery. National defended on the grounds that the additional duty demanded was in dispute, and Reedy made the payment voluntarily after being informed not to do so by National. Reedy moved for summary judgment which was granted.
Where the determination of liability depends upon the written instruments of the parties and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question at issue is one of law only and ordinarily is determinable by summary judgment. Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla.3d DCA 1970).
Under its bond with the U.S. Customs Service, Reedy clearly was liable for the additional duty and we find the trial judge was correct in granting summary judgment for Reedy. We also note that the bond contains a provision allowing National to post a bond to supersede the one posted by Reedy, but National failed to do so.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDONALD, 676 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…was solely a question of law, namely, whether the lease required Wal-Mart to require liability insurance to protect Merrill Crossings from premises liability at the site of the shooting. National Luggage Services, Inc. v. Reedy Forwarding Co., Inc., 339 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (where liability rests on construction of written instruments and their legal effect, issue is one of law and is properly determined by summary judgment). We affirm the rulings on the appellants’ motions for summary judgment, as t…
-
Ball v. Fla. Podiatrist Tr., 620 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…rmination of liability depends upon a written instrument and its legal effect, the question is essentially one of law and is ordinarily determinable by the entry of summary judgment. National Luggage Services, Inc. v. Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc., 339 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Font v. Lazarus Homes Corporation, 339 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); accord Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) and Kochan v. American Fire and Casualty Company, 200 So. 2d 213 (Fla.…
-
John W. Buckner, M.D. v. Physicians Protective Tr. Fund, 376 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…rmination of liability depends upon a written instrument and its legal effect, the question is essentially one of law and is ordinarily determinable by the entry of summary judgment. National Luggage Services, Inc. v. Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc., 339 So. 2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Font v. Lazarus Homes Corporation, 339 So. 2d 258 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); accord Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla.3d DCA 1970) and Kochan v. American Fire and Casualty Company, 200 So. 2d 213 (Fla.2d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Inst., Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)