Where Administrative Law Meets Pleading

The Court of International Trade has also dismissed a case in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection attempted to impose a penalty on a customs broker. The underlying issue had to do with the failure of the broker to properly deposit antidumping duties and to properly identify the producer of freshwater crawfish from China.

This is another in the now long series of decisions from the Court of International Trade that turn on pleading rather than the merits. There is nothing wrong with that. Obviously, plaintiffs need to properly plead their cases to proceed. But, these cases are usually not as interesting as a decision on the merits.

This case is somewhat interesting because it seems to plug the holes left by two earlier cases. The first is based on United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage. In UPS, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Customs and Border Protection had not properly pursued a penalty against a broker because it failed to consider all 10 factors listed in the relevant regulation. In this case, Customs apparently failed to specify what regulations the broker allegedly violated. Based on this, the defendant asserted that Customs failed to properly exhaust the administrative process. As all student of administrative law know, exhaustion is usually an important step in getting into Court.

In this case, however, the Court of International Trade thoroughly reviewed the statutory requirements for imposing a broker penalty under 19 U.S.C. 1641 and collecting it under 28 U.S.C. 1582. The Court found there to be no statutory requirement for exhaustion for the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to attach. Thus, according to the Court, it has the discretion to decide whether exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement. This resolves any lingering doubt about whether UPS was a jurisdictional decision. According to the CIT, it was not and exhaustion is not required under these circumstances.

The second hole to be filled comes from United States v. Optrex America in which the Court of International Trade held that the United States cannot amend a complaint to assert gross negligence or fraud that was not asserted at the administrative level. Again, the Court of International Trade held that Optrex is not a jurisdictional decision. Rather, it can reasonably be read an dismissing the government's enhanced claims on the basis that it failed to satisfy the required administrative procedures in much the same way that Customs failed to consider the 10 factors in UPS.

So, the Court found that it does indeed have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against the defendant customs broker. But, the United States failed to provide the required notice to the defendant during the administrative process. As a result, it cannot state a claim against the defendant. Case dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more