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 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 Court of International Trade should dismiss a Section 592 penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations has run out and the "action is untimely," Liu said in a Dec. 13 motion. The fraud case brought by the U.S. was not brought within five years from the date of the alleged violation because the defendant was not involved in the transaction at issue, as he was neither an owner, officer or director of GL Paper Distribution -- the company that committed the alleged fraud and a co-defendant in the action, the brief said. Liu also argued that the U.S. failed to state a claim against the defendant. As a result, Liu should be severed and dismissed from the case, the brief said (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).

Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. must pay more than $100,000 in unpaid duties on an entry of honey from China imported in 2002, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit, filed under Section 1582, echoes another case brought against Aegis that looks to collect duties on entries of garlic that liquidated in 2006 (see 2211010037). The surety in that case has argued that the statute of limitations has passed for the action, claiming that the U.S. has a six-year window to file such action that runs from the date of liquidation. The U.S. says that this window starts from when CBP makes a demand for payment (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

CBP cannot collect on a bond due 14 years ago by claiming a breach occurred only when CBP demanded payment through the agency's own error, Aegis Security Insurance Company said in an Oct. 21 response brief and request for dismissal at the Court of International Trade (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

The Court of International Trade's March dismissal of a case seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China was correct because the importer properly revoked its statute of limitations waiver, Katana Racing said in an Oct. 24 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).

The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).

The U.S. will appeal a March Court of International Trade case that found CBP can't pursue unpaid duties from identity theft victims due to the statute of limitations. Per the May 25 notice of appeal, DOJ is taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The trade court opinion tossed a case brought by the U.S. seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on 386 entries of passenger and light truck tires from China that Katana said were the result of identity theft (see 2203280047). The judge said Katana was allowed to revoke an earlier statute of limitations waiver and that without the waiver, any action by CBP is barred by the passage of time (United States v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT #19-00125).