*1 STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNITED Defendant, LEATHER, INC.,
TREK Shadadpuri, Defendant-
Harish
Appellant.
No. 2011-1527. Appeals, States Court of
Federal Circuit.
July 30, 2013. *2 of International Trade granting (“the
part government”) the United States’ summary judgment, motion for finding Shadadpuri gross negligence liable for imported connection mer- chandise into the States and impos- United 1592(e)(2) ing penalties under 19 U.S.C. Shadadpuri for that conduct. contends “importer officers of not directly penalties record” are liable for 1592(c)(2). In the circumstances here, presented we agree. We find absent piercing Trek’s veil to that Shadadpuri establish was the actual record, statute, by as defined Tosini, Counsel, Stephen Senior establishing Shadadpuri C. Trial is liable Branch, Divi- Litigation 1592(a)(1)(A), Commercial Civil for fraud under or as an Justice, sion, Department United States by aider and abettor of Trek DC, Washington, argued plaintiff- 1592(a)(1)(B), we must reverse the pen- him on the brief were appellee. With alty against Shadadpuri.1 assessment Delery, Acting F. Assistant Attor- Stuart General, Davidson, E. Di- ney Jeanne I.
rector, Jr., White, and Franklin E. Assis- tant Director. Of counsel was Scott A. The relevant facts are not in dispute. MacGriff, Attorney. Trial (“Trek”) Leather, Trek Inc. was the im- Mlawski, Galvin, seventy-two porter J. & of record for en-
John Galvin York, NY, defendant-ap- argued February New tries of men’s suits between pellant. and October 2004. Mercantile (“Mercantile Electronics, LLC Electron- DYK, PLAGER, Before ics”), suit, party which is not a this O’MALLEY, Judges. Circuit consignee of the men’s suits. Shadad- president sole puri is the shareholder by for the filed Opinion court Circuit (40%) Trek, forty-percent and is also O’MALLEY. Judge of Mercantile shareholder Electronics. Dissenting opinion filed Circuit no even allegation There is evidence or Judge DYK. Shadadpuri is a licensed himself cus- toms broker.
O’MALLEY, Judge. Circuit pur- Mercantile Electronics Mr. Harish Trek and (“Shadadpuri”) number appeals decision chased a of fabric “assists” and appears solely it 1. While from the record that the relies on its claim that it can avoid allege showings would have been able to having to make the liability, instead, or more of theories it one these by, seeking it contends must make expressly not chose to do so below and has impose liability upon direct him for opportunity chosen to seek an additional 1592(c)(2). appeal. do so here on Trek should in outside conceded he knew have to manufacturers provided them cluded the value of the fabric assists its An assist is defined States. Shadadpuri nor duties. Neither 1401a(h)(l)(A) as, among other 19 U.S.C. *3 in paid the balance of the duties owed “materials, components, parts, things: govern connection the assists. The in imported incorporated similar items in the ment filed suit Interna merchandise.” Trade, claiming tional that both Trek and 1401a(h)(l)(A)(i). The manufac- foreign Shadadpuri, personal capacity, in his were to men’s suits the assists make turers used $2,392,307, penalty liable for a for into the imported Trek United which knowingly, intentionally fraudulently, 2004, the States August In United States. the dutiable value of the im understating (“Cus- Border Protection Customs and ported See United men’s suits. States toms”) Trek’s import activities investigated Leather, Shadadpu Inc. and Harish entry the relevant and determined ri, 1:09-cv-00041-NT, Case No. Doc. No. failed to include the cost of documentation (“Complaint”). government The alter price paid pay- in the or fabric assists natively Shadadpuri alleged that and Trek turn, which, suits the men’s able for (1) grossly negligent were lia either: of duty payable the amount lowered $534,420.32, penalty ble for civil or in- Trek. In November Customs for a civil penalty and liable that Trek had failed to Shadadpuri formed $267,310.16. further of the fabric assists when declare the value sought unpaid customs duties importing the merchandise. $45,245.39. failed to include Shadadpuri previously scheme which governs acting declarations when assists in requests penalties these claims and In importer. of a behalf First, contains relevant sections. two Shadadpuri, discovered that subject what conduct is defines of Mercantile Wholesale acting on behalf a penalty. provides: It (“Mercantile”), Inc. failed to include (a) Prohibition entry documentation the cost Mercantile’s (1) General Rule identifying trim fabric when assists regard Without to whether United payable or for the price actually paid may deprived States is or of all or Import merchandise. The same Customs portion any duty, tax, lawful or Specialist investigation that conducted by fraud, fee thereby, person, no currently discrep- at issue discovered the gross negligence— or negligence, explained Shadadpuri in 2002 and ancies (A) that assists dutiable and must be introduce, were enter, may or at- documentation. As a import included on enter or tempt any introduce investigation, result of the 2002 Mercantile into the merchandise commerce of paid $46,156.89 States of— unpaid duties after ad- means to add the value of the mitting it failed (i) or any electronically document actually paid payable in the price assists information, transmitted data did not take merchandise. Customs statement, written or oral or act any against personally. action false, which is material and (ii) in 2004 regarding material, When confronted any omission which is case, assists at issue this
(B) (B) may any aid or abet other per- if the violation did not affect the (A). son to violate subparagraph duties, assessment of percent the dutiable value of the merchan- 1592(a). 1592(c) 19 U.S.C. Section then dise. penalties describes the which be as-
sessed, depending on the level of an
1592(c).
of-
19 U.S.C.
culpability.
fender’s
provides,
It
in rele-
moved for summary
part:
vant
judgment
claims,
on all
and Trek and Sha-
(c)
Maximum
*4
dadpuri cross-moved for partial summary
claim;
judgment on the fraud
Shadadpuri
(1) Fraud
also
summary
cross-moved for
judgment
A fraudulent violation of subsection
respect
claims,
with
to
negligence
con-
(a)
punishable
of this section is
by a
that,
tending
because he was not the “im-
penalty
civil
in an amount not to ex-
porter
was,
of
instead,
record”—and
only a
ceed
domestic value of the mer-
corporate officer thereof —no such cause of
chandise.
action
against
could lie
During
him.
oral
negligence
Gross
argument before the Court of Internation-
conceded,
Trade,
al
it had
gross-
been
A grossly negligent violation of sub-
ly negligent, but
having
denied
committed
(a)
section
punishable
this section is
fraud;
intentional
Shadadpuri continued to
penalty
a civil
in an amount not to
deny liability-on all counts.
exceed—
Shadadpuri
argued
Trek,
because
a
(A) the lesser of—
corporation,
record,
was the importer of
he
(i) the domestic value of the mer-
could
be liable
if
personally
gov-
chandise, or
ernment
pierced
either
Trek’s
veil or
(ii)
established that Shadadpuri either
duties,
four times the lawful
tax-
had
es,
committed fraud or aided and abetted
and fees of which the United
Trek,
fraud
making him hable under
States is or may
deprived,
be
1592(a)(1)(B) (“[no
person] may aid or
(B) if the violation did not affect the
any
abet
other person to violate subpara-
duties;
assessment of
40 percent of
(A)”).
graph
rely-
contended —
the dutiable value of the merchan-
ing on our decision in United States v.
dise.
America, Ltd.,
Hitachi
On that the appeal, Shadadpuri counters “importers may lia- directly plain language of mandates record” import shall, shall merchandise into person” party writing, “no using reason- materially States the United means able care— false statements omissions and (A) by filing make therefor is not limited to provision “importers with the Bureau of Customs and Bor- fraud, committing or those but record” or, der Protection such documentation corpo- also includes officers of pursuant to an authorized electronic basis, of record. On rate this interchange system, data such infor- contends Court of is necessary mation as to enable the properly International Trade Shadad- held Bureau Customs and Pro- Border for a puri liable direct violation tection to determine mer- whether the and properly imposed chandise be released from custo- 1592(c)(2). jurisdiction We have dy of Bureau 1295(a)(5). to 28 pursuant Protection; Border (B) complete entry, or substitute
II. reconfigured 1 or more entries on statement, import activity summary review legal We determinations filing Customs Service from the Court International Trade value, declared classification rate ques without deference and review factual applicable duty merchandise, to the Elecs., clear Inc. tions for error. NEC *6 or, other pur- and such documentation States, (Fed.Cir. United 144 F.3d an suant electronic data inter- 1998). agree We with the system, such change other information in “person,” appears that the word as it necessary as is to enable the Customs 1592(a), broadly. § should U.S.C. be read to— Service Section 1592 is not a free criminal standing sanction, Accordingly, oper however. the (i) properly assess duties on simply ative is not Sha question whether merchandise, § dadpuri is a as in defined (ii) accurate with collect statistics but whether a can be officer merchandise, to the respect and importer personally liable for a §§ of record’s violation of (iii) any determine whether other 1592(c)(2) punished § and 1485 and (other requirement applicable of law therefor. requirement than a re- relating to custody) from customs met. lease is turn first to the We structure Act. Tariff Section 1484 of Title 19 1484(a). § 19 U.S.C. the requirements timing sets forth and provides Section 1484 party quali- entry making imported merchandise record,” “importer of in fying as an either into the States: United person or via an must agent, authorized (a) Requirement and time completing use “reasonable care” in entry Except submitting documentation to enable provided as in sections
1498, 1552, title, properly and 1553 one of Customs to assess duties on of this parties qualifying “importer An is “importer merchandise. of record” (2)(B), .purchaser either defined owner or paragraph record” as the by merchandise, in person agent or a customs with a authorized broker desig- § contains a material omission. Id. Section 19 U.S.C. valid license under owner, punish negli- all purchaser does nated Customs, with it gence dealings punish- merchandise. 19 consignee of they 1484(a)(2)(B). is es such acts when occur in con- § of record “entry” nection of merchandise pro- reasonable care when with required to use they into the States and when demonstrating viding documents Customs affect duty appli- and rate of are such character as to Customs’ value declared assessing decision-making so that when duties the merchandise cable to can, entry. things, assess connection with such See United among properly other Corp., merchandise. 19 U.S.C. States v. Thorson Chem. on the duties 1484(a)(1)(B). F.Supp. An of record 1197-98 Int’l Trade 1992). context, provisions entry making entry under In this defined as also declare under oath filing 1484 must to enable Customs to information all in the documents subject the statements whether the merchan- determine are correct. 19 U.S.C. true custody dise released from 1485(a)(3). Notably, obligations enable assess Customs to duties on the imposed any are also on 1484 and 1485 merchandise, statistics, collect accurate writing” by im- agent “authorized any applica- determine whether other with porter record to act its behalf requirements ble met. are 19 U.S.C. respect under those sections. (de- to its duties 1484(a); also 19 see C.F.R. 141.0a fining “entry” as the documentation re- specific penalties provides Section 1592 quired to be filed Customs or the act proper entry, make a whether failing to documentation.). filing such fraud, gross negligence, or even through mere As the Court of Inter- assessed Trade observed national (c)(3) gross negli are for *7 Automation, Inc., v. 462 Rockwell in gence negligence or connection with 1243, 1246-47 Int’l Trade F.Supp.2d “entry.” Negligence such acts of is 2006), event that be- Customs “[i]n defined in the separately statute. Accord lieves failed to its obli- meet ingly, we must assume it ordi carries its 1930], gations Tariff Act of [the nary meaning common law when used in penalties civil may seek See, e.g., the Tariff Act. Neder v. United Tariff Act of 1930].” Section 592 of [the States, 1, 21, 1827, 119 144 527 U.S. S.Ct. 1592(a) (1999) (“It particular focuses on L.Ed.2d is a
Section
35
well-established
entry of
rule of
Congress
merchandise into the
construction that where
conduct:
uses
Specifically,
United States.
bars
terms that have accumulated settled
law,
“person[s]”
entering, introducing,
meaning
or
...
from
common
introduce,
infer,
court
to enter or
merchan-
must
unless
statute other
attempting
dictates,
by way
Congress
dise
States
of wise
in
into the United
means to
fraud,
gross negligence,
meaning
the established
of these
terms.”)
1592(a).
(citations omitted);
provision
focuses
Standard Oil
States,
introduction,
1, 59,
entry,
improper
such
Co.
v. United
U.S.
of N.J.
(1911)(“[W]here
502,
entry or introduction of mer-
31 S.Ct.
tion with
of merchandise set
and as to which Customs assessed duties.
forth in the Tariff Act which could give
does not contend that
rise to a negligence claim are
spelled
Shadadpuri was an “importer of record or
§§
out
1484 and 1485. Section
customs broker.” Nor does it assert that
(c)(3)
are thus inextricably tied to
any
had
independent duty un-
§§ 1484 and 1485.
§§
der
1484 and
respect
1485 with
recognized this interac- Trek’s entries.
It concedes that Trek is a
tion between
1484 and
that,-
1485 and the
corporation even as its sole
*8
penalties which
shareholder,
can be assessed under
chargeable
is not
§ 1592 when filing
summary
its
judgment with
generally.
its acts
motion at
the Court of
reasonably
International
cannot
contend
given
otherwise
Leather,
Trade. See United States v. Trek
long-standing principles of
liability
limited
Inc. and Harish Shadadpuri, No. 1:09-
corporate
shareholders and
officers
CV00041-NT, Doc. 30 at 11.
In its mo- when acting on. behalf of a corporation.
tion, under the section heading
Abbott,
349,
“[f]
See Anderson
[vi-
v.
321 U.S.
361-
1592(a),”
olation
62,
(1944)
19
gov-
531,
[o]f U.S.C.
64 S.Ct.
(1932) (“[a]
claim.
and its stockhold-
corporation
liability only applies to intentional
separate
abetting
as
to be treated
generally
ers are
acts,
entities.”).
course,
chargeable
not
ones.
Of
because he is a
actions
Shadadpuri’s
re-
seeks to avoid the
(i.e.,
“agent”
is an
he
corporate officer
by the structure
compelled
sult that seems
law sense
the common
corporation
in
Hita-
and our decision
of the Tariff Act
in.
term);
is wheth-
question posed
of that
1592(a)
“per-
defines
by arguing that
chi
under the circumstances
Shadadpuri,
er
to the
more
subject
son[s]”
here,
chargeable with
personally
can be
broadly
than
1484 and 1485 define
actions he took in his
for the
negligence
And,
govern-
of record.”
“importer
on
officer and
be-
as a
capacity
only addressed
argues
ment
that Hitachi
prin-
basic
corporation. Under
half of the
“exporters” under
parent
law,
cannot.
he
See
ciples-
1592(a)
its
apply
and did not mean to
Corpora-
Thompson’s
Close
O’Neal
un-
holding
potential “person[sj”
to other
Practice, § 8.22
Law and
tions
LLCs:
1592(a).
persuaded
der
We are not
(Rev.
ed.)
when an officer
(stating that
3d
either score.
acts,
action is that of
.his
corporation
of a
entity).
“person” gener
the word
While
connotation,
ally
it cannot
carries
broad
instance,
Hitachi,
we found that
In
be divorced from the remainder
by their
apply
§§ 1484 and 1485
because
1592. The word
language
record,
importers
terms
“
in context and ‘with a view
must be read
could not
of an
corporate parent
statutory
place
in the overall
thereof,
[its]
directly liable for violations
be
”
Servs.,
Roberts v. Sear-Land
scheme.’
“an active role”
played
even where it had
—
1350, 1357,
Inc.,
U.S.-,
132 S.Ct.
of merchandise.
importer’s
(2012)
Davis v.
(quoting
with the control 1592(a).3 duct under While all of these by importer of of merchandise record. readily routes seem viable—indeed avail- Hitachi, 172 posi- F.3d at 1336-38. The us, govern- able—on record before here, the government though tion takes has steadfastly ment eschewed them all. effect; phrased differently, is to the same it, Instead, we accept simultaneously government if we would has asked us to may adopt overrule the result in Hitachi. We a broad legal principle would that, expose do all corporate not nor do we wish to. We did not officers and share- limit either or holding personal our discussion in holders to exporters; they Hitachi to focus was on our acts undertake on their cor- behalf parent, explicit statutory fact as a Hitachi Absent an poration. ba- Japan so, was not doing record and sis for we decline to believe such, despite findings by Congress supplant had no duties as intended to the corn- agree "person” We 2. term aided and abetted fraud Dissent at Trek. "importer disagree is broader than term 1342-43. While we do with the Indeed, described, of record.” is no doubt support legal there that a they facts theories variety "persons,” including corporate offi- government expressly has chosen not. cers, may aiding abetting be liable for pursue. sought never to es- record, of, though even tablish that either com- they designated are not themselves im- Shadadpuri’s mitted While fraud. conduct porter, be liable for their own direct reprehensible, we cannot creat- endorse acts of fraud. ing legal for the shortcuts im- pose penalty because that this case would *10 government employ free argument that same 3. dissent makes a factual that may finding support well We a that shortcut in all other cases. do not want personal letting either trap committed a act of fraud or to fall into the bad facts make. § 1484 of the And, defined 19 U.S.C. ing we decline completely.4 so mon law —as in Hitachi holding negli- our liable for may or dilute to reverse customs statutes — 1592(a)(1)(A). as a under gence may fully understand Thus, while we veil, it corporate of the piercing Absent made government strategy choices (agents of the corporate that officers them and reverse holds here, it to we hold of International are not liable corporation) like judgment imposed penalties it extent Trade to the customs negligently submitting false 1592(c)(2) Shadadpuri while upon forms. corporate a officer as capacity in his acting view, majority’s interpretation my In Trek, of record.”5 “importer corporate language of plain inconsistent with the REVERSED history. I legislative and its the statute dissent. respectfully
Costs No costs. I
DYK,
Judge, dissenting.
Circuit
majority suggests
that
1592 is
import-
holds that
majority
penalties for vio-
designed solely
impose
authorized
writ-
agent
er of record
law, and, thus,
interpreting
is a
the criminal
the invitation to
acts. Wise
case
decline
bad
Act;
holding
provisions of the Sherman
its
do so.
scope
rests on a careful assessment of
impose personal
Congress intends to
4. When
provision
that
and the class of entities
corporate
for conduct tak-
officers
reach,
historically within its
in-
individuals
such,
says
capacity
it
so ex-
in their
en
cluding corporate
knowingly en-
officers who
See,
(fraud
e.g., 18 U.S.C.
pressly.
illegal
gage
proscribed.
acts
There are
Act).
Sarbanes-Oxley
The dis-
provisions of
nor fraud claims asserted
neither criminal
corporate
should be
argues that
officers
sent
And,
against Shadadpuri
action.
this
penalties as-
personally for the cost of
liable
fundamentally
Tariff Act is
different from
1592,
acting in
when
even
sessed
history with the Sherman
shares no common
officers,
even when their
capacity as
their
Act.
support
merely negligent.
In
conduct was
5. To the extent the dissent is concerned
it
to United States v.
proposition,
this
cites
1047,
(Ct.
corporate
making
officers be held
Int’l
sure
Islip,
F.Supp.2d
turn,
which,
1998),
by corpo-
"liable for false statements made
relies on United
Trade
Inc.,
knowingly participated in
F.Supp. 50
ration if the officer
Appendagez,
States v.
1983),
deception
the false
v.
or failed to correct
which relies on Herm
Int’l Trade
learning
upon
them" Dissent at
F.Supp.
(W.D.Ky.1979) and
statements
Stafford,
Wise,
F.Supp.2d
quoting Islip, 18
at
82 S.Ct.
370 U.S.
(1962).
they
no doubt
can be. Section
Those two cases
there is
1341 “ 1485, §§ of that has that arguing ‘person’ lations 1484 and made clear often has a meaning ... ... in regarding ‘duties’ the law.” broad[ ] See Clinton “[t]he 1485,” York, 417, v. City §§ in New 524 n. spelled are those out 1484 and U.S. 428 of (c)(3) 13, (1998) 141 “Section are S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 393 and that 1). § (citing 1 inextricably history §§ to 1484 and U.S.C. The of thus tied 1592(a) § the argues “person” shows term Maj. Op. 1485.” at 1337. It meaning has such a broad in on that statute. only imposes § since duties “im- 1592(a)(1)(A) § The to precursor imposed of porters “agents record” and authorized liability for false statements on to by [importer writing,” the of record] individuals, of range wide including cor are the can persons who porate representatives like Shadadpuri. § for penalties liable 1592. But Specifically, prior version of the stat § § contains no 1484 and reference to ute liability conferred on ... broadly any sanctions “person [who] fraud, gross by negligence, or seller, any owner, consignor, importer, enter[s], introduce^], attempt[s] ... to or agent, consignee, or other person per- by ... any enter or introduce merchandise introduces, sons enters or at- [who] any of ... ... which means document is tempts any to enter or introduce ... false, or ... any material omission imported by any merchandise means of 1592(a). is material.” 19 which U.S.C. declaration, invoice, fraudulent false letter, affidavit, paper, means of Alternatively, urges majority statement, any false written or ver- agents of record are importers and written bal. ... only persons who could make an “en- But try” meaning within 1592. added). (emphasis U.S.C. be correct. Any this cannot clearly Shadadpuri would be liable under typically acts The through agents. record this earlier As the majority statute. con- requires “entry” scheme that an cedes, Shadadpuri qualifies agent as an filing specific of merchandise is made Maj. Op. Trek. See at 1338 (conceding that documents with the See customs service. ‘agent’ “is of the corpora- 1485. who súb- Those tion in the common law sense of that mit those documents have a to ensure duty term”). Shadadpuri clearly provided And they are Section accurate. to false information Customs that omitted 1592(a)(1)(A) designed is impose to the value of certain fabric assists. agents importers who record question is whether change duty submitting
breach this the re- language using statute’s the word — quired documents for entries on behalf of “person” current version record. replace the list of covered history is clear from of persons predecessor This in the statute— 1592(a)(1) changed meaning discussed or even ac- of the statute. It —not knowledged by majority. The current quite clear that the substitution of the statute, to a for the language appearing which refers word list in the “person,” adopted predecessor designed in 1978. See Cus- was not statute Simplifica- Procedural change. legisla- toms Reform and make a substantive 95-410, 110, tive history explicitly tion Act Pub.L. No. stated that “[t]he persons 893-94. ... Supreme Stat. covered intended [we]re *12 1342 importer other than the room for those they [the [we]re same
remain the for viola- accountable record to be held that ... law,” “emphasize[d] previous] tions,” “consistently allowed that it has scope change not d[id] the committee [jointly and to be held corporate officers respect to existing law] of [the were for violations that severally] liable provi- liable” under potentially persons employ- of their capacity in the committed 18, (1978), 95-778, at 20 S.Rep. No. sion. ment,” for as was the case 2211; see also 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. Matthews, 533 v. United States below. (1978), 95-1517, at 10 No. H.R.Rep. (Ct. 1307, Trade 1313-14 Int’l F.Supp.2d (not- (Conf. 2249, Rep.) U.S.C.C.A.N. 2007). ... covered persons [we]re “the ing that same”). to remain intended II version of the current
Shortly after
these
distinguish
to
majority
seems
1592(a)
of Inter-
adopted,
§
Court
rath-
involving fraud
Trade
cases as
Court”),
Court
(“Trade
explained
national Trade
Maj. Op. at 1340
er than
See
of the stat-
language
changing
language in
n. 5. But the same
n.
limitation
ute,
placed
version
“[n]o
the new
1592(a)
“per-
(referring
to
corpo-
were
persons
... on whether such
sons”)
negli-
to both fraud
applies
it conclud-
persons,”
rations ór natural
1592(c) (defining
See 19 U.S.C.
gence.
ed that
fraud, gross
liability under
leg-
its
in the Act
nothing
[ ]or
there is
There is
negligence).
negligence,
that the Con-
history
islative
to indicate
statutory text that would
nothing in the
applica-
restrict
gress intended to
agent’s
direct lia-
distinguish between
bility
penalties [in
1592]
of the
negligent
bility
fraudulent entries and
from the
and to exclude
corporations
suggest
majority’s
effort
ones.
officers of
applicability
might
text
cover
of a claim
merely because
corporations
misguided.
is
See
and not.
in their
they
acting
were
Martinez,
v.
543 U.S.
Clark
capacities.
(reject-
S.Ct.
160 L.Ed.2d
judges
dangerous principle
“the
ing
Inc., 560
Appendagez,
v.
statutory text different
give
can
the same
1988).
(Ct.
50, 55
Int’l Trade
F.Supp.
cases”).1
meanings
different
has stated
recently,
More
Court
Trade
may be liable for
officer
that “[a]
construction of
1592 mandated
if
corporation
a
false statements made
contrary
history is not
legislative
in the
knowingly participated
the officer
Hitachi,
not ad-
decision in
which did
our
the false
to correct
deception
failed
question
of whether
dress
of them.”
upon learning
Unit-
statements
could be
other than an
of record
1047, 1061
Islip,
F.Supp.2d
ed
States
for material
false statements
liable
(alteration
1998)
origi-
1592(a)(1)(A),
Int’l Trade
which
omissions under
omitted).
nal)
Unsur-
that Hitachi
(quotation
merely
marks
at
here.
It
held
issue
of rec-
then,
has noted
not the
Japan,
Trade
which was
prisingly,
case,
be liable for
in that
could not
1592 leaves ord
language
of section
“[t]he
fraud, but
aid and abet a
an individual could
v. Hitachi
1. To be sure under United States
America, Ltd.,
1999),
(Fed.Cir.
act.
ments made to Customs
Plaintiff-
1592(a)(1)(B).
Appellant,
under 19
record
Ill United States Court of Appeals, Here, clearly the record showed that Federal Circuit. Shadadpuri signed required entry doc- behalf, umentation on Trek’s Supp. J.A. July 2013. 31-32, 79-88, Shadadpuri conceded at argument oral in the Trade Court that he
“had the responsibility obligation
examine all appropriate documents includ-
ing all [required] entry assists within the
documentation.”
Leather, 781 F.Supp.2d 2011).
Int’l Trade But the documentation had material authorized omis-
sions and therefore repre- contained false
sentations. Because been had
responsible for the similarly submission of
false entries in the past, the Trade Court
reasonably deemed Shadadpuri’s actions
negligent, rendering him individually liable
for his holding actions. This was consis-
tent with the statute.
The Trade interpretation Court’s
statute is correct. majority’s inter-
pretation demonstrably incorrect. I re-
spectfully dissent.