Fraud Investigation Company Files Suit to Force CBP Testimony in Whistleblower Case
A recently filed lawsuit in D.C. federal court seeks to compel CBP testimony in a long-running case brought against an importer by a company founded to file customs fraud lawsuits. Customs Fraud Investigations says CBP is refusing to send an officer to testify in a False Claims Act whistleblower suit in Eastern Pennsylvania U.S. District Court on whether Victaulic failed to properly mark its pipe imports, and should have paid marking duties (see 1610060030).
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.
Specifically, some of Victaulic’s fittings were marked “China” with an InkJet printer, CFI said in an Oct. 24 filing at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Given CBP’s role in enforcing marking requirements, CFI requests that a CBP official weigh in on whether that suffices as being “marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently,” as required by the customs laws. If not, CFI seeks to recover marking duties that should have been paid by Victaulic.
“Testimony regarding the application of its own regulations on whether imported items are properly marked would fall squarely within the Agency’s purview,” CFI said. “Indeed, CBP routinely inspects imports and advises importers on similar marking questions. Thus, CBP’s testimony is uniquely relevant to the key issues in dispute in the underlying litigation.” Nonetheless, after its testimony was requested in a subpoena, CBP told CFI the day before the deposition was set to occur that it would not be sending an officer.
“CBP’s bases for declining to comply with the Subpoena are unsubstantiated, and, accordingly, CBP cannot meet its burden to show that the testimony sought is either privileged or unduly burdensome. Indeed, none of the information CFI is seeking would implicate information protected under any of the recognized privileges and providing an employee to testify as to the mere ten (10) listed topics in Schedule A of the Subpoena will have a minimal impact, if any, on the Agency’s resources,” CFI said.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the filing.