Limitations Periods for Penalties

In United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, the defendant was accused of a running a scheme to avoid antidumping duties on wire hangers from China by transshipping them through other countries and incorrectly stating the country of origin. The government is seeking to impose a penalty of just under $1 million, which is the domestic value of the merchandise. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that it is barred by the statute of limitation and that Mr. Liu is not a proper defendant because he did not import the goods.

Let's pause for a moment. First, the fact that this penalty is the domestic value of the merchandise may seem odd. It is not. The complaint asserts that the violation occurred as a result of negligence. Under 19 USC 1592, the penalty for negligence is usually up to twice the loss of revenue, which will usually be much less than the entered value of the merchandise. However, the statute says that when the violation results from negligence, the penalty can be the lesser of the domestic value or two times the loss of revenue. In this case, the antidumping duty rate was approximately 186%. According to the Court, the loss of revenue was $556,808. Two times that would exceed the value of the merchandise, which is why the penalty is based on the domestic value rather than the loss of revenue. 

It is also a warning to importers of goods subject to antidumping duties. If things go bad, they can go seriously bad, but not worse than the domestic value of the goods (assuming a civil matter and negligence).

Second, note that the penalty is not based on the entered value; it is domestic value. There is a difference. Importers mays assume CBP has made an error when the penalty claim exceeds the entered value. "Domestic value" is not defined in the statute. Court cases have determined that it means the retail value of the merchandise or "the price at which the merchandise or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale in the ordinary course of trade." That is very likely to be the entered value plus duties, taxes, and fees, plus costs incurred in the U.S., plus a profit. 

Back to the actual issue in this case.

The statute of limitations in a negligence case is five-years from the date of the alleged violation. 19 USC 1621. The complaint asserts that the violations occurred on entry. In an effort to show that the United States was too late to assert the claim, defendant argued that the negligence occurred before the first entry, when it "allegedly" cause or caused to be formed the company that imported the goods. The Court shut this down. According to the Court, the violation occurs when the merchandise enters the customs territory of the United States. That makes sense in that one might set up all of the legal entities necessary to negligently import merchandise and never get around to making an entry. To hold the government to a statute of limitation that starts to run before the entry or other document containing the material false statement or omission does not make sense. It is like holding someone liable for "prenegligence" in a civil version of Minority Report. 

Photo by Hadija on Unsplash


The complaint also asserts a penalty based on Mr. Liu aiding and abetting a violation by others. Raising a similar argument, Liu claims that any behavior that constitutes aiding or abetting would have occurred prior to entry. The problem for this argument is that to be liable, one must "aid or abet" a violation and the violation does not occur until the entry. "Ergo, the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting violations of § 1592(a)(1)(B) due to negligence begins to run on the date of entry."

Finally, Liu argued that he should not be subject to a penalty because he was not the importer. This is a non-starter in the world after Trek Leather. On its face, section 1592 applies to any person who violates the statute. That applies to corporate officers of the importer and other individuals who were somehow involved in the importation that relied on a material false statement or omission. In this case, the complaint alleged facts indicating that Liu controlled and directed the operations the importer. That is sufficient to allow the claim to go forward. 

The Court denied Liu's motion to dismiss. 

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