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

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