## Facts

- United States Shoe Corporation exported merchandise through U.S. ports and paid the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) assessed at 0.125% of cargo value under 26 U.S.C. §§ 4461–4462.
- The HMT on exports was collected at loading and deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to support harbor maintenance and related projects.
- U.S. Shoe filed a protest with the Customs Service seeking a refund, asserting the HMT on exports violated the Export Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 5).
- Customs denied the protest, characterizing the HMT as a statutorily mandated user fee rather than an export tax.
- U.S. Shoe sued the United States in the Court of International Trade seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and a refund.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing there were no material facts in dispute and that the case presented pure questions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of International Trade had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to the HMT as applied to exports.
2. Whether the HMT imposed on exported merchandise is a permissible user fee or an unconstitutional “Tax or Duty” barred by the Export Clause.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) to adjudicate the challenge.
- The court held the HMT, as applied to exports, violated the Export Clause because it functioned as a “Tax or Duty” on exported articles.
- The court granted U.S. Shoe’s motion for summary judgment, denied the government’s cross-motion, and awarded relief requiring a refund of HMT paid on U.S. Shoe’s exports.

## Legal Principles

- The Export Clause prohibits the federal government from laying any “Tax or Duty” on articles exported from any state.
- A charge imposed on exports may be sustained only if it is a valid user fee tied to services or facilities provided to the payer, rather than a revenue-raising measure imposed on the goods themselves.
- An ad valorem assessment keyed to the value of exported cargo—rather than to use of port services—indicates a tax or duty, not a compensatory user fee.
- Statutory direction treating the HMT “as if” it were a customs duty supports Court of International Trade jurisdiction over related disputes, including constitutional claims arising from its assessment and collection.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and ruled that the Harbor Maintenance Tax, measured as a fixed percentage of export cargo value and not calibrated to services rendered, was an unconstitutional tax on exports under the Export Clause, entitling the exporter to a refund.


United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 907 F. Supp. 408 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995)