United States v. American Home Assurance Co., 151 F. Supp. 3d 1328

Background

Consolidated collection actions: United States sued American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC) to recover unpaid antidumping duties secured by 336 customs bonds (single-transaction and continuous) for Chinese garlic, mushrooms, and potassium permanganate entries (2001–2002).
Customs suspended liquidation for entries during Commerce administrative reviews; statute (19 U.S.C. §1504(c)) requires Customs to notify importers, their agents, and sureties of such suspensions.
Customs’ automated system often failed to send the statutorily required suspension notices to AHAC (some notices went to AHAC’s former agent or only to continuous-bond sureties), so AHAC did not receive direct §1504(c) notice for many entries.
AHAC protested Customs’ demand letters; most protests were denied and AHAC did not appeal those denials to the CIT. The government then filed timely collection suits (with time-limited waivers in two matters).
Key legal disputes: effect of missed notice on suspension/deemed liquidation and statute of limitations; whether AHAC may assert prejudice and other contractual defenses in the collection actions; entitlement to various categories of interest (§1677g, §1505(d), §580, equitable, post‑judgment).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does lack of §1504(c) notice nullify suspensions so entries were deemed liquidated earlier and claims time-barred?	Government: prior ruling stands that failure to notify does not invalidate a suspension; suits timely where suspension valid.	AHAC: lack of notice caused deemed liquidations (one year after entry) and six‑year limitations ran, so many suits are time‑barred.	Court reaffirmed AHAC I: lack of notice does not vitiate suspension; AHAC's reconsideration denied.
Did publication of Commerce partial-rescission notices lift suspensions and start §1504(d) six‑month liquidation clock (triggering deemed liquidation and 6‑year suit period)?	Government: rescissions did not unambiguously lift suspension; only final results or liquidation instructions do.	AHAC: Federal Register rescissions unambiguously removed suspensions and gave Customs notice; deemed liquidations occurred and claims are time‑barred for affected entries.	Court held publication of partial rescissions was sufficient to lift suspension and notify Customs; government’s claims are time‑barred for entries in court nos. 10‑002, 10‑003, and 30 entries in 10‑311.
Are waivers of 28 U.S.C. §2415(a) ineffective because the statute of limitations is jurisdictional and non‑waivable?	Government: §2415(a) is an ordinary limitations provision and is waivable; AHAC’s waivers valid.	AHAC: §2415(a) is jurisdictional and thus cannot be waived; suits untimely despite waivers.	Court held §2415(a) non‑jurisdictional under Supreme Court precedent (no clear congressional statement); AHAC’s waivers effective; suits timely for entries covered by waivers.
May AHAC assert defenses (e.g., prejudice from lack of notice, challenges to interest) despite not appealing protest denials?	Government: protest-denial finality under 19 U.S.C. §1514(a) bars AHAC from relitigating those matters.	AHAC: collection action is a contract/surety suit distinct from importer's protest; AHAC can assert contractual and prejudice defenses without prior protest appeal.	Court held AHAC may raise contractual defenses (including prejudice and interest challenges) in the collection action; protest finality does not bar surety defenses here.
Can AHAC obtain dismissal/relief based on prejudice from failure to receive §1504(c) notice (single-transaction vs continuous bonds)?	Government: AHAC has not shown it was prejudiced in a way the statute protects; no relief.	AHAC: failure to receive notice prevented it from taking steps (demand collateral, terminate continuous bond, investigate) to mitigate loss.	Court: For single‑transaction bonds, AHAC failed to show cognizable prejudice — summary judgment denied for AHAC on these bonds. For continuous bond, genuine factual dispute exists whether AHAC would have mitigated (termination or collateral) — requires trial.
Is the Government entitled to pre‑liquidation interest under 19 U.S.C. §1677g on some entries?	Government: §1677g interest became final via protest denial and is recoverable (limited to case 09‑491).	AHAC: §1677g applies to cash deposits, not surety bonds; also protest-denial finality not binding here.	Court held AHAC may raise defenses; §1677g interest is not recoverable here — Government's claim under §1677g (in 09‑491) dismissed.
Is Government entitled to post‑liquidation interest under 19 U.S.C. §1505(d) and prejudgment statutory interest under 19 U.S.C. §580, and to equitable prejudgment interest?	Government: seeks §1505(d) post‑liquidation interest, §580 prejudgment statutory interest, and equitable interest beyond bond limits.	AHAC: challenges applicability to antidumping duties and argues equitable interest double‑counts; disputes entitlement to §1505(d) and equitable interest.	Court held Government entitled to §1505(d) post‑liquidation interest and §580 statutory prejudgment interest (§580 covers antidumping duties); equitable prejudgment interest denied because §580 provides statutory compensation.
Is Government entitled to post‑judgment interest?	Government: yes, under 28 U.S.C. §1961 (via 28 U.S.C. §1585 power).	AHAC: no objection.	Court awarded post‑judgment interest at §1961 rate on any money judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Great American Insurance Co. of New York v. United States, 738 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.) (rule on notice, suspension, and prejudicial effect)
American Home Assurance Co. v. United States, 789 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory prejudgment interest §580 covers antidumping duties)
NEC Solutions (America), Inc. v. United States, 411 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (what constitutes unambiguous notice lifting suspension)
Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (requirements for deemed liquidation under §1504(d))
Utex International, Inc. v. United States, 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir.) (surety may assert contractual defenses in Government collection suit)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. United States, 959 F.2d 960 (Fed. Cir.) (surety defenses are personal and distinct from importer protests)
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory limitations presumptively non‑jurisdictional absent clear statement)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (Sup. Ct.) (limitations generally treated as waivable affirmative defenses)