The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 18 text-only order granted the government's request for 60 more days to file their opening brief in a case on whether the statute of limitations had passed on an action seeking to collect on a customs bond from surety firm American Home Assurance Co. (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).

The U.S. articulated a theory of fraud but did not "plead fraud with particularity" in its case against importer Katana Racing seeking over $5.7 million in unpaid safeguard duties on Chinese tires, Katana argued in a renewed motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Again seeking to dispatch of the case following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's remand kicking the matter back to the trade court, the importer said the govenrment's case did not touch on the "who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud" as required by the Supreme Court in making a pleading, particularly one for fraud (United States v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

The U.S. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation and not from the date that CBP demanded payment. Per the notice of appeal, the government will take the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT # 20-00175).

The Court of International Trade should decline to follow another recent opinion regarding the statute of limitations on bond collection, due to "significant flaws" in its reasoning, DOJ said in a Sept. 25 reply at the Court of International Trade. That opinion in U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co. found that the six-year statute of limitations on customs bond collections ran from liquidation rather than the issuance of a bill (see 2308220054) (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).

The U.S. "consistently fails to consider" the filing of a collection action in the Court of International Trade as a valid "'demand' for liquidated duties," surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. told the trade court in an Aug. 30 reply brief. Given this failure, the government is illegally trying to limit the concept of "demand" to the issuance of a bill in its attempt to get Aegis to pay a customs bond on entries that liquidated in 2006, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic may be affected by the Court of International Trade's ruling in a similar case, defendant Aegis Security said in a notice of supplemental authority. CIT Judge Richard Eaton ruled on Aug. 22 that the statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying liquidation rather than from the date that CBP demanded payment (see 2308220054). Though Aegis notes that CIT judges are not bound by the decisions of other judges on the court, the company has been arguing for a similar result (see 2210270054).

The statute of limitations for CBP to collect on customs bonds runs six years from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation, not from the date that CBP demanded payment, the Court of International Trade said in an opinion released publicly on Aug. 22, rejecting CBP's bid to collect on a 20-year-old customs bond.

The government cannot collect 20-year-old customs bonds when it took no action to collect them for over a decade, ruled the Court of International Trade in an opinion made public on Aug. 22. Judge Richard Eaton found the six-year statute of limitations on the bonds "began to run at liquidation when all of the events necessary to bring suit for the duties owed had occurred," not when CBP demanded payment. Even if the court agreed that CBP's claim that its action for breach of contract accrued thirty days after AHAC failed to pay, the claims would still be time-barred, said Eaton. Issuing a demand for payment was an act solely within the control of CBP. "Like any prudent litigant, CBP ... must act reasonably in pursuing its claims under a bond," he said.

CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic shouldn't be thrown out because a change in tactic by the government didn't fundamentally alter the responsibilities of the bond issuer, DOJ argued in an Aug. 10 reply at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).

The Court of International Trade improperly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a $5.7 million customs penalty suit against importer Katana Racing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 3 opinion. While the trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver making the U.S. government's suit untimely, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit." Instead, it provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived.