## Facts

- Transaero, Inc., a U.S. aviation-parts seller, supplied parts to La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana (Bolivian Air Force) during the early 1980s.
- In 1988, Transaero filed a breach-of-contract action in the Eastern District of New York seeking $983,696.60.
- Transaero attempted service by sending translated summons and complaint by registered mail directly to the Bolivian Air Force in La Paz; the receipt was returned, but the Bolivian Air Force did not appear.
- After notice of a default-judgment hearing was also sent to Bolivian officials and diplomats, the New York court entered a default judgment for Transaero.
- Transaero registered the judgment in the District of Columbia and sought enforcement.
- The Bolivian Air Force moved to defeat enforcement, arguing the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because service did not comply with the FSIA provisions governing service on a foreign state.
- The District Court for the District of Columbia treated the Bolivian Air Force as an “agency or instrumentality” and upheld service under FSIA § 1608(b); the Bolivian Air Force took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. For FSIA service of process, should a foreign state’s armed forces be treated as the “foreign state or political subdivision” (FSIA § 1608(a)) or as an “agency or instrumentality” (FSIA § 1608(b))?
2. If FSIA § 1608(a) applies, does service by registered mail addressed directly to the air force (a § 1608(b) method) fail to confer personal jurisdiction, rendering the default judgment unenforceable?

## Decision

- The court exercised jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine because denial of a sovereign-immunity-related claim is immediately appealable.
- The court held the Bolivian Air Force is a “foreign state or political subdivision” for FSIA service purposes, not an “agency or instrumentality.”
- Because § 1608(a) governed, Transaero’s § 1608(b) service was defective and did not confer personal jurisdiction on the New York court.
- The court reversed the enforcement ruling and remanded with directions to dismiss the enforcement proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- FSIA § 1608 creates separate service regimes: § 1608(a) for a “foreign state or political subdivision,” and § 1608(b) for an “agency or instrumentality.”
- For FSIA § 1608, a foreign state’s armed forces are treated as the foreign state itself (or a political subdivision), requiring service under § 1608(a).
- The statutory structure reflects heightened formality and diplomatic sensitivity when serving a foreign sovereign; plaintiffs may not bypass § 1608(a) by naming a core sovereign organ as the defendant.
- Defective FSIA service prevents personal jurisdiction; a default judgment obtained without FSIA-compliant service is void and cannot be enforced in a later enforcement action.
- In FSIA classification questions affecting foreign relations, the Executive Branch’s view may be given substantial weight.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that a foreign air force is part of the foreign state for FSIA service purposes, so service must comply with § 1608(a); because Transaero served only under § 1608(b), the New York default judgment lacked personal jurisdiction and could not be enforced.


Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994)