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.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 denied a motion by importer Wanxiang America to dismiss a penalty case related to its alleged misclassification and failure to pay associated antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings.

The Court of International Trade lacks the authority to prevent CBP from collecting Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from importer PrimeSource Building Products given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the duties, the government argued in a recent brief. Responding to PrimeSource's request for a stay of the appellate court's mandate pending its appeal of the suit to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. said the Federal Circuit's mandate "could not be clearer": President Donald Trump's expansion of the duties to cover steel and aluminum "derivatives" is lawful and CBP's collection of the duties proper (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).

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.

CBP's attempts to collect a 14-year-old bond for antidumping duties on Chinese garlic should be thrown out because the agency's collection policy change "fundamentally altered" the responsibilities of all parties to the bond, said surety Aegis Security Insurance in its June 26 brief at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 20-03628).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a government counterclaim of unpaid duties in a classification case on dried botanicals imported by Second Nature Designs because DOJ pointed to no authority that gave it a cause of action to assert a claim to collect duties in excess of those assessed during final liquidation, Second Nature said in a May 17 brief in support of its motion to dismiss the counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).

The statute of limitations for collection of duties under a bond expires six years after the relevant entries are liquidated, surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said in its response to a customs penalty complaint from the government. Aegis disputed the U.S. claim that the calculation of delinquency runs from the billing of the subject entry (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The government owes interest on refunded duty overpayments made with a prior disclosure, importer Otter argued in a Feb. 16 motion at the Court of International Trade. Government arguments that repayments of voluntary tenders are not subject to interest accruals means that penalties for prior disclosures could never be enforced if they were made before a penalty was issued, Otter said (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).