The government's right to collect on a bond against a surety doesn't accrue until the surety breaches the bond, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 28 motion for judgment in a case seeking to collect on a bond that covers imports entered during 2002-2006. Since the terms of the bond say that the surety must pay "as demanded by CBP," the statute of limitations on which to file suit to collect payment runs from when CBP demands payment, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

While the companies found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China argue that the evasion investigation deprived them of their due process rights, this is not how Congress set up the evasion statute, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 10 brief. Opposing the plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the Enforce and Protect Act does not require CBP to notify a party that it's under investigation nor give a company access to confidential information or an opportunity to be heard. DOJ also made the case to CIT that the facts back up its ultimate evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03914).

Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).

Untethering the six-year statute of limitations for customs bonds from the date an entry is liquidated would impair the ability of customs sureties to function, and CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis Security Insurance eight years after liquidation is an unreasonable delay that would cause real harm to the surety, Aegis said in a brief filed Sept. 16 at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department's mandatory respondent selection process in a countervailing duty case on wood flooring resembled "Russian roulette" due to fundamental errors in the CBP data used to make the respondent picks, plaintiffs in a case at the Court of International Trade said in four briefs (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03885).

An amicus brief from a group of domestic agricultural goods producers reared its head in a second case over when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond. A group of surety associations should not be able to argue in the case due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," the producers argued in their July 16 amicus brief that was granted permission to be filed in the case (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

A group of surety associations should not be able to argue against when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," a group of domestic agricultural goods producers said in a July 8 amicus brief in the Court of International Trade. The brief was filed to oppose the surety associations' motion to intervene in the lawsuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

The three-judge panel in the Section 301 litigation at the Court of International Trade peppered a government lawyer with tough questions June 17 when the judges asked the Department of Justice to explain how its opposition to a court-ordered reliquidation, or money judgment, if the plaintiffs win the case, doesn’t support a finding of irreparable harm for the importers. Oral argument lasting nearly 80 minutes was held on the preliminary injunction (PI) motion Akin Gump filed April 23 for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

Domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders filed motions for judgment May 24 seeking court orders that CBP distribute delinquency interest that they say should be paid to affected domestic producers under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.

The Customs Surety Coalition called foul on a CBP attempt to collect unpaid antidumping duties eight years after the relevant entries liquidated, saying the “devastating impact on the surety program is obvious,” in a May 20 amicus brief filed in the Court of International Trade. Stepping in to help defend Aegis Security Insurance Co., the coalition argued that if the court were to accept CBP's position, the statute of limitations on duty payments would be eliminated, allowing the agency to use the law to "absurd ends." CSC was joined by its four coalition members -- the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc., the Surety & Fidelity Association of American and the Customs Surety Association -- in its brief (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).