failed to show that disposition of the controversy would have “broad or significant implications in the administration or interpretation of the customs laws” within the congressional intent of section 255. In the present action, plaintiff has not demonstrated that its claim falls within the class of actions intended by Congress under section 255. Allegations of unconstitutionality, in and of themselves, are insufficient to bring an action within the confines of the section 255 exception to the single-judge trial standard. Indeed, in the past, cases raising questions of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress also have been resolved exclusively by a single judge of this court. See, e.g., Erie Navigation Co. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 47, C.D. 4820, 475 F. Supp. 160 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Although it is possible to envision an action
holding that interest received by a foreign corporation on a tax refund from the united states was interest on an interestbearing obligation of a resident of the united states within income tax statute holding statute assessing duties on costs of foreign repairs done to united states vessels to be constitutional holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states