CAFC Remands Broker Penalty Case

On August 11, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in UPS Customhouse Brokerage. We have covered this case a number of times including here, here, and here. The really interesting question in UPS is whether there is a statutory limitation on the penalties that can be assessed against brokers. UPS has argued that 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(2)(A) should be read to limit the liability for all violations prior to the notice of penalty to $30,000. Unfortunately, that issue is not decided in this decision.

Rather, the Court of Appeals first held that UPS had been using the wrong tariff classification. This is despite a fancy legal argument based on the last antecedent rule. That's one of my customs lawyer favorites. It posits that an adjectival phrase modifies the previous noun most close to it. So, according to UPS, when the HTSUS says "parts and accessories of machines of heading 8471: Not incorporating a cathode ray tube," it covers parts and accessories of machines that do not incorporate cathode ray tubes. The parts themselves might be chock full of CRTs. The Court rejected this and held that the modifier operates on "parts and accessories," not on "machines." This is easier to see if you have the tariff in front of you and can see the indents.

The next question had to do with how Customs and Border Protection determines whether a broker has exercised responsible supervision and control. The relevant regulation is 19 CFR § 111.1, which lists factors Customs "will consider." Apparently, Customs did not consider all of the factors listed. UPS argued, therefore, that CBP's determination is invalid. Customs, on the other hand, seemed to admit that it did not consider all of the factors, but argued that it had discretion to consider only those it viewed as relevant. Further, CBP argued that the Court of International Trade had to defer to that decision.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. It held that the regulation provides a clear mandate to consider all the factors. Customs has discretion in how it weighs each factor but, according to the Court, it has to consider all of them. Agencies must follow their own regulations and Customs failed to do so.

Unfortunately for UPS, the Court did not invalidate the penalty case entirely. Instead, it remanded the case for further proceedings. That means we can expect the CIT to remand the case to Customs to consider all the factors and report back with a new determination, which is likely to be the exact same decision.

Given this conclusion, the Federal Circuit found it to be premature to decide the interesting question. That means this issue is going to have to come back up the Court of Appeals and that might take a while.

Comments

Anonymous said…
john anganos owner of city fish and his family embezzeled 2.3 million dollars from the state of connecticut in 2001 and transfered it to an overseas account which now pays annuitys to all those involved. the fbi investigated but is having problems recovering the funds from the greek bank where anagnos serves as a board member. The money was funded from a Enron/CRRA fund during the rowland administration.
Aug 17, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
Larry said…
Anyone want to make an argument for how that comment relates? Just for fun?
Aug 17, 2009, 4:49:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more