CIT Levies Max Penalty on Sugar Importer for Tariff Misclassification
The Court of International Trade on May 5 imposed the maximum allowable penalty on an importer and its executive for misclassifying entries of sugar (here). The now-defunct International Trading Services (ITS) and its President, CEO and managing member Julio Lorza will pay $295,655.77 in unpaid duties and a penalty of $691,311.54 for negligently misrepresenting that the sugar qualified for a tariff provision dutiable at about 3 cents per kilogram when it was actually dutiable at a rate of about 35 cents. The court’s decision was partially the result of Lorza’s and ITS’s failure to respond to the government’s penalty motion.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
According to CIT, ITS imported seven entries of sugar in 2007, classifying it in subheading 1701.99.0500 as “cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form,” that is “described in general note 15 of the tariff schedule.” General note 15 covers agricultural products that are imported for a government agency or imported for personal use in a shipment of five kilograms or less, samples approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, blended syrups and cotton. Sugar of subheading 1701.99.0500 is dutiable at $0.036606 per kilogram.
CBP asked Lorza and ITS for documentation that the entries are described by general note 15. After it didn’t receive it, CBP reclassified the entries under subheadings 1701.99.5010 and 1701.99.5090, dutiable at $0.3574 per kilogram. After filing suit, and subsequent to a dispute over whether Lorza could be included in the case despite not being named on penalty notices (see 1612050017), the government filed a motion for judgment in its favor seeking the maximum penalty for negligent misclassification: two times the value of the merchandise.
The court examined whether the penalty should be mitigated, finding no reason to lower the penalty in part because it was “hindered by” ITS’s and Lorza’s “failure to respond to” the government’s motion “with any evidence that might support penalty mitigation.” ITS and Lorza did not exhibit “extraordinary cooperation,” and despite no evidence of past violations Lorza and ITS “serially misclassified” the entries at issue in this case. “These factors support a substantial penalty,” CIT said. Lorza did not submit any evidence of his inability to pay the penalties. “In light of the afore-mentioned factors strongly favoring a heightened penalty, and absent evidence supporting penalty mitigation, the court finds that the statutory maximum penalty of $691,311.54 is appropriate,” the court said.
(U.S. v. Int’l Trading Servs., LLC, Slip Op. 17-55, CIT # 12-00135, dated 05/05/17, Judge Barnett)
(Attorneys: Daniel Volk for plaintiff U.S. government; Peter Herrick for defendants International Trading Services, LLC and Julio Lorza)