United States v. C.H. Robinson Co.
2012 WL 5441563
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Government sues CH Robinson under the Tariff Act to recover duties for three T&E entries of Chinese apparel destined for Mexico via Los Angeles to Laredo.
- CH Robinson, as bonded carrier, was responsible for exportation or proper disposition of the T&E merchandise and subject to 18.8(c) penalties if missing.
- CBP conducted a post-entry audit under 18.7(c); it could not locate or account for the merchandise, leading to a presumption of non-delivery and liability on CH Robinson.
- CH Robinson relied on date-stamped CF 7512s and pedimentos (Mexican import documents) as proof of export, despite later evidence questioning their validity.
- Investigation revealed pedimentos did not match Mexican records; other supporting documents showed no proof of export or transfer to Mexican authorities.
- Expert Torres Herrera concluded the pedimentos were not valid Mexican import documents, supporting the inference that the merchandise did not enter Mexico.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CH Robinson is liable for duties on missing merchandise | Government contends missing merchandise triggers 18.8(c) liability for CH Robinson. | Robinson argues it delivered to Laredo and owes no further liability beyond that delivery. | Robinson liable for missing merchandise; duties imposed. |
| Whether Government proved missing merchandise by preponderance of the evidence | Evidence from CBP audit and expert shows merchandise not exported or accounted for. | Robinson challenged sufficiency; sought to rely on CF 7512s and pedimentos as proof. | Government proved missing merchandise by preponderance. |
| Whether pedimentos constitute valid export proof | Pedimentos, though argued, are used to show exportation. | Pedimentos were not genuine; could not be verified in Mexican databases. | Pedimentos not valid export documents; cannot show export. |
| Allocation of burden and role of regulatory framework in missing-T&E determination | Government need not locate actual missing goods; regulatory framework allows missing-merchandise findings. | Carrier should have no liability if goods were passed to other entities or exported; burden shifting improper. | Carrier remains liable; Government may collect duties where missing merchandise is unaccounted for. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tech Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (regulatory-burden framework and missing-merchandise concepts)
- Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (preponderance standard and evidentiary requirements)
- United States v. Imperial Food Imports, 834 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (pre-judgment interest and government remedies in duties context)