Judgments, Default and Otherwise

 The CIT has issued a few procedural decisions that are worth mentioning.

First, in Universal Steel Products, which we discussed here, the three-judge panel issued an order granting partial judgment on those claims that have been decided. See the prior post for the details of those claims. Partial judgment is possible under CIT Rule 54(b). In this case, the Court found that the previously decided claims were separate from any issues remaining before the Court and that there was no reason to delay entry of judgment. This is valuable for the plaintiff who is now able to file an appeal.

There is a lingering issue of whether the increased tariffs on steel imported from Turkey to 50% from 25% was procedurally flawed because it occurred outside the the statutory timeframe for relief. That issue is stayed pending the final determination in Transpacific Steel. 

Next, the CIT issued two default judgments in penalty cases. The first involved a company called E.G. Plastics, Inc. the second involved a company call Green Planet, Inc. A default is what happens when the defendant in a penalty collection suit fails to appear and defend the assessment of the penalty and collection of duties, taxes, and fees. Keep that in mind. Ignoring a penalty case does not make it go away. Defaulting is the legal equivalent of admitting the facts of the complaint. But, the Court does not just accept the government's asserted duty and penalty amounts. However, in these cases, in the absence of any information from the defendant indicating a reason to mitigate the penalty or duty collection, the Court issued judgment in favor of the United States at the amounts asserted. 

Finally, in U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co. and Aegis v. Tricots Liesse 1983, the Court ordered that the importer reimburse the surety nearly $800 thousand dollars the surety tendered to the U.S. to resolve a duty collection case. The bond, as one might imagine, included an indemnity agreement under which the importer agreed to reimburse the surety for "any amount paid to U.S. Customs on behalf of [Tricots] and to pay all collection fees and legal costs in the recovery of payments made by the surety . . . ." Given the language of the the agreement and the lack of any facts indicating it should not be enforced, the Court ordered summary judgment in favor of the surety including reimbursement for reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses (which remain to be determined). 




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