United States v. American Home Assurance Co.
2014 CIT 7
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2014Background
- AHAC issued a continuous surety bond (limit $600,000) for importer JCOF covering multiple entries, including two crawfish tail meat entries from Yangzhou Lakebest in Nov. 2001.
- Commerce assigned Yangzhou Lakebest a 223.01% antidumping duty in its Feb. 13, 2004 Final Results; Customs liquidated the entries in June 2004 at that rate, and reliquidated them in June 2005 after related litigation concluded.
- AHAC filed protests after each liquidation but did not pursue litigation when Customs denied those protests; Customs made a formal demand on AHAC for unpaid antidumping duties and interest, and the Government sued on the bond in 2010.
- AHAC contends the June 2005 reliquidations were void/untimely, that the entries were deemed liquidated at importation (0% rate), and thus AHAC owes nothing; the Government contends AHAC is liable under the bond and seeks both §580 statutory interest and equitable prejudgment interest.
- The Court held AHAC is liable under the continuous bond because AHAC failed to timely challenge the reliquidations, and awarded equitable pre- and post-judgment interest but denied statutory interest under 19 U.S.C. § 580.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AHAC is liable under the continuous bond for the reliquidated antidumping duties | Government: AHAC is liable because June 2005 reliquidations became final when AHAC failed to litigate the denied protests | AHAC: June 2005 reliquidations were void/untimely and entries were deemed liquidated at 0%, so AHAC owes nothing | Court: AHAC liable — reliquidations were subject to the timely protest requirement, no deemed liquidation preexisted the reliquidations, AHAC failed to preserve the challenge |
| Whether the Government may recover interest and what kind | Government: Entitled to statutory interest under 19 U.S.C. § 580 and equitable prejudgment interest | AHAC: § 580 does not apply to antidumping duties; equitable interest should be limited or denied absent bad faith | Court: § 580 does not apply to antidumping duties; awarded equitable prejudgment interest (from second formal demand) and postjudgment interest under § 1961 |
Key Cases Cited
- Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (untimely protest requirement bars collateral attack on erroneous liquidations)
- United States v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., 112 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (deemed liquidation can render later reliquidation legally ineffective)
- Ins. Co. of North America v. United States, 951 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (surety liable for interest if it unjustly withholds payment after notification)
- United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1915) (surety may owe interest for default in withholding payment)
- Dynacraft Indus. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2000) (distinguishing antidumping duties from ordinary customs duties for interest statutes)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (special duties like antidumping differ from ordinary customs duties)
- National Gypsum Co. v. United States, 515 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1995) (prejudgment interest generally awarded to achieve full compensation)