The Court of International Trade on March 18 said that the U.S. waited too long to send surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. a bill for an unpaid customs bond on Chinese garlic imports that entered in 2004. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the government's eight-year delay in demanding the payment from Aegis "was unreasonable and a breach of contract." The court said the delay broke the "reasonable time requirement" -- an "implied contractual term."

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).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).

The Court of International Trade should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

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 Court of International Trade isn't "statutorily barred from granting" importer PrimeSource Building Products' request for a court order stopping CBP from collecting Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the importer, PrimeSource said in a Sept. 12 reply brief. Addressing the government's claim that the trade court lacks the authority to grant the partial stay, the importer said the request, which seeks a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the case challenging the expansion of Section 232 duties to cover "derivative" products, seeks relief from CIT and not the appellate court (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).

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).