GRVR ATTORNEYS, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SPECIALISTS
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • posters >
      • Terms and Conditions for Posters
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact

Court decides that CBP cannot extend the thirty-day redelivery period without proper notice

9/30/2010

0 Comments

 
Can US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) slap an importer with liquidated damages for failing to redeliver merchandise when CBP does not demand redelivery within the period required by CBP’s own regulations?  Well, of course not, you would think. The answer is so obvious that no one in their right mind would waste the time and energy to argue against the point.  

Cue US vs. Pressman-Guman, the latest case from the US Court of International Trade.  The importer imported textiles.  CBP issued a Request for Information (CF 28) to request samples from the importer.  CBP wanted to review whether the importer properly classified the imported merchandise.  When CBP received the samples, it sent two more CF 28s to the importer, informing the importer that CBP was extending the conditional release period by ninety days while CBP performed lab work on the samples.  In other words, CBP claimed that it had an additional ninety days to decide whether to order the importer to return or redeliver the merchandise to CBP.  About four months after it received the samples, CBP concluded that the importer misclassified the merchandise and improperly claimed quota.  CBP demanded that the importer redeliver the merchandise into its custody, an impossibility given that the merchandise was already with the importer’s clients.  CBP decided to impose $120,000 in liquidated damages against the importer’s bond.  The importer refused to pay, and the CBP filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade.

 The Honorable Delissa A. Ridgway wrote the court’s opinion.  She methodically reviewed the mountain of evidence in the importer’s favor before dismissing the lawsuit.  One of the pieces of evidence is 19 CFR 113.62(d) which states that “any demand for redelivery ... be made no later than ... 30 days after the end of the conditional release period.”  Judge Ridgway excoriates CBP for ignoring its own history in interpreting the regulation:

This is an action that never should have been brought ... the Government here contends that individual Customs personnel at ports all across the country are empowered to redefine the concept and duration of the conditional release period “by unilateral fiat” and without explanation, as each individual sees fit, on a case-by-case basis, with no regard for consistency or predictability, effectively over-riding on a “one-off” basis virtually two full decades of Customs Headquarters rulings setting forth Headquarters' official, considered interpretation of the agency's regulations governing the timing of the issuance of demands for redelivery.  Merely to state the proposition is to refute it.

Judge Ridgway’s biggest criticism is directed not at the CBP staffer who extended the thirty-day redelivery period.  Instead, Judge Ridgway directs her derision at CBP officials and government attorneys who decided to press their claim in court:

However, while ignorance might (in some measure) excuse the actions of an individual Customs staffer working out in the “field,” it does nothing to explain the agency's subsequent determinations, much less the decisions of counsel to press an untenable position in litigation.

Judge Ridgway’s opinion is undoubtedly reverberating within CBP, and it would behoove the agency to be more carefully to actually follow its own regulations, rulings, and public pronouncements.  Not only was CBP’s lawsuit bereft of logic,  it needlessly consumed a decade’s worth of time and money for all parties involved.  Judge Ridgway concedes that CBP, like all other federal agencies, has a right to change its policies and regulations, but can do so only in accordance with the law, presumably by following the public notice and comment procedures that all federal agencies must follow.  Judge Ridgway’s opinion should help importers keep CBP honest regarding the interpretation and enforcement of CBP’s regulations.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Oscar Gonzalez

    Principal and a founding member of GRVR Attorneys.

    Archives

    September 2016
    December 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    April 2014
    November 2013
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    September 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    And Forfeitures
    Bankruptcy
    Border Searches
    Bureau Of Industry And Security
    Classification
    Commodity Jurisdiction
    Compliance
    Country Of Origin
    Court Of International Trade
    C TPAT
    C-TPAT
    Customs Broker Exam
    Customs Brokers
    Export
    Export License
    Export Penalties
    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    HTSUS
    Immigration
    Importer Self-Assessment
    Incoterms
    Intellectual Property Rights
    International Sales Contracts
    ITRAC
    Litigation
    NAFTA
    OFAC
    Penalties
    Post-Entry Amendments
    Prior Disclosure
    Redelivery
    Sanctions
    Torts Claims Act

    RSS Feed

Picture
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • posters >
      • Terms and Conditions for Posters
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact