Update: National Semiconductor

Remember National Semiconductor? This is the penalty the Court of International Trade awarded interest on unpaid Merchandise Processing Fees under 19 U.S.C. 1505(c). This provision is the law that gives Customs and Border Protection the right to collect interest on unpaid duties and fees. The Court also assessed a $10,000 additional penalty under 19 USC 1592(c)(4)(B)(i.e., the prior disclosure statute).

The Federal Circuit reversed that decision and remanded for a new determination. According to the Court of Appeals, 1505(c) does not provide authority for the Court to award interest as part of a penalty case. The second time around, the Court of International Trade awarded the maximum penalty allowed in the prior disclosure (i.e., the interest owed) plus pre-judgment interest. Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the maximum penalty and reversed the pre-judgment interest. Here is the opinion.

In analyzing the maximum penalty, the Federal Circuit noted that how the Court of International Trade weighs the factors in coming to a penalty amount is within the discretion of the lower court. The Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion and upheld the penalty.

The more interesting part relates to pre-judgment interest. First, the Court held that pre-judgment interest is not available for awards of punitive damages. Since, section 1592 sets up a penalties scheme, it is clearly punitive. Further, where the amount of the claim is uncertain, pre-judgment interest is not permitted. This is interesting. The Court held that the interest penalty in a prior disclosure is not necessary fixed at the full amount due. Further, if there is litigation, the amount of the penalty is up to the trial judge. Consequently, at the time of the penalty notice, the ultimate penalty is not fixed. Based on these two factors, the Federal Circuit reversed the award of prejudgment interest.

Comments

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