United States v. American Home Assurance Co.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10154
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2001 JCOF imported freshwater crawfish tail meat from Yangzhou (a “new exporter”); JCOF posted a $600,000 one‑year continuous surety bond issued by American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) to secure duties.
- Commerce’s 2004 administrative review assigned Yangzhou a 223.01% antidumping duty; Customs liquidated JCOF’s November 2001 entries in June 2004 and billed duties; JCOF did not pay.
- AHAC filed protests contesting Customs’ demands; Customs erroneously reliquidated the entries in June 2005 (outside the statutory reliquidation window) and again demanded payment; AHAC’s later protests were denied and not litigated to the Court of International Trade.
- The government sued AHAC in 2010 to recover duties and interest under the continuous bond; cross‑motions for summary judgment followed.
- The Court of International Trade held AHAC liable under the bond, denied the government statutory prejudgment interest under 19 U.S.C. § 580 for antidumping duties, but awarded equitable prejudgment interest; AHAC appealed and the government cross‑appealed.
- Federal Circuit: affirmed AHAC’s liability under the bond, reversed the denial of § 580 statutory interest (holding § 580 covers antidumping duties), and vacated the award of equitable prejudgment interest for reconsideration in light of the statutory interest ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AHAC is liable under the continuous bond for antidumping duties after Customs’ erroneous 2005 reliquidations | AHAC: the 2005 reliquidations were invalid and, because no valid liquidation existed within the statutory period, the entries were deemed liquidated at 0%, eliminating liability | Government: original June 2004 liquidations were timely; AHAC’s pending protest did not prevent reliquidation from becoming final once AHAC failed to litigate the denial of its protest | AHAC liable: no deemed liquidation occurred; erroneous 2005 reliquidations became final and conclusive because AHAC failed to timely contest them in court (Juice Farms governs) |
| Whether 19 U.S.C. § 580 statutory prejudgment interest applies to bonds securing antidumping duties | Government: § 580’s plain language applies to “all bonds” sued for “recovery of duties,” so it covers antidumping duties | AHAC: historical context and prior government positions show “duties” means traditional revenue duties, excluding antidumping duties | Held for government: § 580’s text covers all bonds sued for recovery of duties, including antidumping duties; statute’s plain language controls |
| Whether equitable prejudgment interest may be awarded in addition to statutory interest | Government: seeks prejudgment interest; also sought equitable interest | AHAC: equitable interest would be inappropriate or would create windfall; raises fairness/waiver arguments | Court vacated prior equitable award and remanded so trial court can reassess equitable interest given entitlement to § 580 interest (decision on dual award left to trial court) |
| Whether a deemed liquidation defense can be raised without timely protest when Customs reliquidates | AHAC: relied on Cherry Hill to argue deemed‑liquidation defenses need not be preserved by protest | Government: Cherry Hill is distinguishable because there was no timely original liquidation there; here original liquidation occurred timely | Held: Cherry Hill inapplicable; where original liquidation was timely and later reliquidation occurred, usual protest/timeliness rules apply; AHAC failed to preserve its challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (timely protest requirement applies to all liquidations; without timely protest liquidations become final)
- United States v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc., 112 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (deemed‑liquidation defense need not be raised by protest when an entry has become final by operation of law)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (enumerates elements required for deemed liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d))
- Dynacraft Indus. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000) (distinguishes between regular customs duties and special duties in the context of interest statutes; addressed interplay of antidumping statutes and interest provisions)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construed statutory phrases in antidumping/safeguard context; not dispositive here)
- United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 738 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discusses novelty and equitable considerations when applying § 580 to antidumping duties)
- Princess Cruises, Inc. v. United States, 397 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standard of review for statutory interpretation on appeal)
- United States v. Federal Ins. Co., 857 F.2d 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (noting interest under § 580 attaches when a court awards unpaid import duties in a suit upon a bond)