Duest

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the agency responsible for the collection of federal excise taxes. Recently, a question has come up regarding which court is the proper venue for an action to collect these taxes. Turns out, that is not as clear as you might have thought. United States v. Maverick Marketing, LLC Et Al., tries to sort that out.

Maverick Marketing and Good Time USA were involved in an agreement to import tobacco. Under 26 USC 5701, importers of tobacco are liable for federal excise taxes. The United States has alleged that Maverick and Good Times made material false statements and/or omissions when entering tobacco products into the United States and, as a result, deprived the government of excise taxes. A previous decision (Slip Op. 18-16) of the Court of International Trade denied defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The jurisdiction problem arises from the language Congress used in the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade.  Keep in mind that the Court of International Trade, like all federal courts, can only act within the jurisdiction granted to it by Congress. For cases the United States brings to collect a penalty assessed by Customs, the relevant statute is 28 USC 1582, which says:

The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action which arises out of an import transaction and which is commenced by the United States—

(1) to recover a civil penalty under section 592, 593A, 641(b)(6), 641(d)(2)(A), 704(i)(2), or 734(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930; 

(2) to recover upon a bond relating to the importation of merchandise required by the laws of the United States or by the Secretary of the Treasury; or 

(3) to recover customs duties.

What's missing from that?

This case is about about recovering federal excise taxes, not customs duties. Federal excise taxes are not mentioned in the statute. Furthermore, this part of the case is not about recovering a penalty; it is only about the taxes. To the extent that the surety was also a defendant, the Court does have jurisdiction under subsection (2) to recover on the bond.

The Court of International Trade was able to see its way through this and find it has jurisdiction. The key is that Section 1582 gives the Court "exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action which arises out of an import transaction and which is commenced by the United State . . . to recover a civil penalty under" section 1592. Section 1592(d) permits the United States to seek the recovery of any duties, taxes, or fees it was deprived of as a result of the false statement or omission. Furthermore, 1592(d) states that Customs may recover lost duties, taxes, and fees even if no penalty is assessed. Consequently, when subsection (1) gives the CIT jurisdiction over a claim to recover a civil penalty under section 1592, that necessarily includes the recover of unpaid taxes and fees, despite subsection (3) being silent as to taxes and fees.

The Court also held that the federal excise taxes are legally equivalent to customs duties for purposes of jurisdiction. Boiling it down: The taxes on tobacco products are imposed on imported merchandise, become due at the time of entry, and are collected and administered by Customs. The taxes are also based on the value of the imported merchandise and reported on the entry documents. All in all, they are handled as if they are duties. This finding is consistent with a federal appeals court case from 1951 that was referenced in the relevant legislative history to 28 USC 1582. It also comports with the ancient legal principal "Si is vultus amo a anatis, natat ut anates, et quacks quasi anas est anatem tum verisimile."



On those two grounds, the Court found it had jurisdiction over is action brought by the government to recover federal excise taxes.

As of July 1, 2018, importers of archaeological pieces have to report their merchandise to U.S. Customs and Border Protection with new detail. That is because the U.S. has added a new statistical breakout for these items and two related statistical notes.

Prior to January of 2018, Heading 9705 provided, in its entirety:

Click Image for Better View

For people who trade in these items, those who study the legal and illegal trade in antiquities, and (presumably) enforcement agencies, lumping archaeological, historical, and ethnographic pieces together did not provide adequate detail about what is entering the country. As previously drafted, 9705.00.0070 covered items as diverse as a 1936 Bugatti race car and an Egyptian Stone Ushabti  from the 18th Dynasty.

Working on behalf of the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield and with the support of several interested not-for-profit entities, we asked the 484(f) Committee to further divide this provision to separately identify, in particular, archaeological items.  The result is a new level of detail on the treatment of the items in Heading 9705 and new statistical notes to add clarity to the language. As a side benefit, there is now also a recognition that coins can, depending on age and how they were collected, constitute archeological pieces.

The new 9705 reads as follows:

Click Image for Better View

Note that the subheading for coins now includes the limitation "other than archaeological pieces." Beyond that, there are new breakouts at .75 for archaeological pieces and .80 for ethnographical pieces. Both breakouts reference statistical note 1, which reads:

For the purposes of statistical reporting number 9705.00.0075, "Archaeological pieces" are objects of cultural significance that are at least 250 years old and are of a kind normally discovered as a result of scientific excavation, clandestine or accidental digging or exploration on land or under water. For the purposes of statistical reporting number 9705.00.0080, "Ethnographic pieces", which may also be called "ethnological pieces" are objects that are the product of a tribal or nonindustrial society and are important to the cultural heritage of a people because of their distinctive characteristics, comparative rarity or their contribution to the knowledge of the origins, development or history of that people. See Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Informed Compliance Publication on "Works of Art, Collector's Pieces, Antiques, and Other Cultural Property".

To ensure that the reporting of archaeological pieces is not obscured in sets or collections imported as a whole, the tariff includes new statistical note 2, which reads:

For statistical reporting of merchandise provided for in subheading 9705.00.00, collections made up of articles of more than one type of cultural property, i.e., zoological, biological, paleontological, archaeological, anatomical, etc., shall be reported by their separate components in the appropriate statistical reference numbers, as if separately entered.

These new data present some important opportunities. To the extent importers are properly reporting the full tariff item and statistical suffix at the time of entry, Customs and Border Protection will have better data to focus on imports that might be subject to restrictions under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. That Convention is implemented in the U.S. as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act ("CCPIA"), 19 USC 2601-2613 and in customs regulations at 19 CFR 12.104-12.109. Under these laws and regulations, the U.S. can extend protection to archaeological and ethnological materials from States that have ratified the Convention and for which the United States has entered into a bilateral agreement.  There is also a mechanism to unilaterally extend emergency protection. Covered items cannot be imported to the United States without documentation showing that their exportation was not in violation of the laws of the originating State or that their importation was otherwise permitted under the CCPIA.

For products not properly declared as archaeological or ethnographic pieces using the correct statistical suffix, the failure to do so might expose the importer to penalties under the customs laws. This is not new, but by separating archaeological and ethnographic pieces from historical pieces, an importer will not be able to assert that it item is a historical piece to disguise its true nature while reporting the correct statistical suffix covering historical pieces as well as archaeological and ethnographic pieces. The importer will now have to pick one and get it right.

While it is true that errors in statistical reporting do not usually result in a customs penalty, this circumstance is different in that the correct reporting goes to admissibility of the merchandise. For items subject to protection under the CCPIA--including those from Iraq and Syria that are protected under special legislation--admissibility depends on the documentation showing legal exportation. The new reporting requirements should help to flag those items and give Customs an additional point of enforcement action.

Why does this matter? Mainly because regardless of the source or nature of the item, the United States, as a party to the Convention has made a policy decision that it wants to help countries preserve their cultural heritage by working to reduce illicit trade in these items. On top of that, there is strong evidence indicating that the illegal sale of looted artifacts has been a source of operating income for terrorist organizations and that this has resulted in significant destruction to priceless sites. See, for example here and here. We are hopeful that these and possibly future changes to the HTSUS will provide Customs, researchers, and traders with better data from which to monitor legal and prevent illegal trade in cultural property.

The United States Department of Agriculture has the important obligation to protect American farms, orchards, forests, parks and backyards against the damage that can be caused by plant diseases and pests that enter the United States through our ports of entry. This is derived from the Plant Protection Act, 7 USC 7701. For commercial importers, the most common pest vector is the humble wooden pallet, which can house and transport a number of pests including horntails (AKA wood wasps).

From http://mobugs.blogspot.com/

The problem with these critters and many like them is that they bore into trees to lay eggs. That can result in bugs emerging from processed lumber or even from completed structures.

When pests are discovered by Agriculture Inspectors at port of entry, the USDA will issue an Emergency Action Notice. Generally, the EAN requires that the offending shipment be turned around and exported from the U.S. 7 CFR 319.40-3. To prevent that from happening, the USDA has adopted a system under which wood packing material may be imported if there is adequate evidence of it having been treated to prevent infestation. The required treatment must be consistent with the international ISPM-15 standard and the material must be marked accordingly.

There has been a lot of recent enforcement action on this of late. In September, CBP issued a notice stating that "to motivate" compliance, it was alerting the trade that CBP may issue penalties for single violations. This was a change from the prior practice of not issuing a penalty until there had been five violations. CBP further noted that there would be no yearly reset for calculating repeat violations. See CSMS #17-000612 (Sep. 26, 2017).

One company that ran afoul of the wood packing material ("WPM") rules is Andritz Sundwig GmbH. Andritz imported $39.5 million in machinery for the production of steel and aluminum in two shipments. For each shipment, it received an Emergency Action Notice demanding the exportation of the cargo. Rather than comply with the EAN, Andritz filed a protest challenging the exclusion and requested accelerated disposition to get the case before the U.S. Court of International Trade. The resulting case is Andritz Sundwig GmbH v. United States.

Andrtiz asked the Court to review the denial of the protest and the demand for immediate exportation. Andritz also asked for declaratory judgment that the EANs are invalid. Andrtiz wanted the Court to order CBP to permit the merchandise to be separated from the WPM and the WPM fumigated.

In response, the United States moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Court of International Trade lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

In most cases, a denied protest is subject to review at the CIT. That is usually non-controversial. However, a protest of the exclusion of merchandise is slightly different than the typical protest over classification, value or rate of duty. Exclusion can only be protested when it is "under any provision of the customs laws." 19 USC 1514(a)(4).

The authority for the EAN, according to the CIT, is not the "customs laws." Rather, it is the Plant Protection Act. The EAN states that the Department of Agriculture is the supervisory agency involved. As a result, the CIT held the denied protest was not properly before it. Moreover, the case was not within the Court's residual jurisdiction, which also relates generally to tariffs, duties, quantitative restrictions (other than for public health and safety) and the administration thereof.  The case belongs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, to which the case was transferred.

One thing to note is that the CBP administrative message notes that a penalty for an EAN would be issued pursuant to section 1592 or section 1595a of Title 19 of the U.S. Code. Title 19, as you likely know, is "Customs Duties," and penalty cases (at least under 1592) are routinely before the CIT. This makes me think that the CIT has not seen the last case involving an APHIS penalty.

Also, as a matter of grammar, I am not following the government's lead and stating that goods subject to an EAN must be re-exported. To me, that implies that they merchandise was previously exported from the U.S. I think the better usage is that the goods need to be exported, for the first time. Anyone have a reason why I am wrong about that?

The saga of the Active Frontier penalty case has been going on since 2011. The CIT has just issued a default judgment against the company, ending this phase of the litigation.

For background, start with this post.

The important take-away from this case is how the Court set the penalty amount. The alleged material false statement in this case is the country of origin. Under the circumstances, this is a non-revenue violation and the maximum penalty is 20% of the value of the goods. 19 USC 1592(c)(3). The United States sought the maximum allowable penalty, which was about $80,000.

Despite the defendant not showing up to refute the claims or assert any mitigating factors, the Court did not say it was bound to assess the maximum penalty. On the contrary, it noted that the penalty is to be set de novo by the Court on the basis of the available information. Here, the Court noted that the true bills of lading clearly showed the true origin of the merchandise. Defendant, exercising even minimal effort could have determined and reported the correct country of origin. On that fact, the Court found it appropriate to assess the maximum penalty for a negligent violation.

[Note: Updated to properly identify the organization supporting the litigation.]

I often tell students and other lawyers that the great thing about my practice is the lack of human drama. In most cases, getting to the right result in a dispute with Customs and Border Protection is about knowing the law and making sure everyone applies it properly to the facts. Usually, no one cries and rarely is anyone subject to imprisonment.

But, that is not always the case. One thing we do in my office is help people with currency seizures. Just to be 100% clear on this: It is illegal to bring over $10,000 in or out of the country without declaring it to Customs. This is very useful information for law enforcement on a number of fronts. The money might be from illegal activity, it might be going to support terrorist organizations, it might be part of a money laundering scheme.

When entering the country, there is an obvious time and place to make this declaration. If you are using a paper declaration form, it is right there as 13: "I am (We are) carrying currency or monetary instruments over $10,000 U.S. or foreign equivalent. Yes. No." On the other hand, when leaving the country, no one asks that question. Many people do not know there is an obligation to report when leaving the country. Those who do may find it hard to find the actual CBP office where the declaration needs to be made and get there in close proximity to the time for a departing flight.

What you need is a FinCEN 105 form. According to the instructions, travelers "shall file FinCEN Form 105 at the time of entry into the United States or at the time of departure from the United States with the Customs officer in charge at any Customs port of entry or departure." If this is relevant to you, call the general number at the port you will be transiting and ask for the correct location to make the declaration. Then, ask yourself why you feel the need to carry a bundle of cash.

I have seen this process cause grief several times. In most cases, if the traveler can prove a legal source of the funds, he or she can secure the release of much of the seized funds. But, not always. If the evidence of lawful sources is unclear or if there are aggravating factors such as efforts to conceal the currency or lying to Customs, the funds or a portion of them may be forfeited.

For the average person, the requirements and then the civil asset forfeiture process can be difficult to navigate. And, honestly, the Customs people who are the front line on this issue are not always as clear and respectful as one would hope.

Another problem is that CBP will not release the seized currency unless the traveler signs an agreement stating that it will not take any legal action against CBP. This is called a hold harmless agreement. According to CBP practice, if the traveler fails to sign the hold harmless agreement, CBP will start administrative forfeiture procedures. Translated to English, that means CBP will use the money as leverage to get itself out of any potential legal jeopardy.

The problem is that the seizure may have actually violated the rights of the traveler. Signing the hold harmless agreements means the traveler gives up the ability to challenge the seizure or seek damages for an unlawful seizure. That means, for example, waiving arguments that the seizure was an unconstitutional taking, violated the fourth amendment's protection against unlawful seizure (but see this discussion), or was otherwise unlawful. Moreover, it means that if CBP delays or otherwise fails to return the money in a timely manner, the traveler gives up his or her first amendment right to petition the government for redress of that claim.

This is the issue in a recently filed class action law suit challenging the requirement for a hold harmless agreement. Thanks to Clif Burns'  Export Law Blog for the tip.

The case is brought by the Institute for Justice. According to its website, "IJ litigates to limit the size and scope of government power and to ensure that all Americans have the right to control their own destinies as free and responsible members of society." Here is the IJ description of the case.

The underlying seizure involved a passenger heading to Nigeria who failed to disclose that she was carrying a little over $41,000. The passenger was a nurse who had saved much of the money to open a clinic in Nigeria. The remainder was from family sources and was to be delivered to her family in Nigeria. Not that is matters, but she was born in Nigeria and became a U.S. citizen in 1994.

Customs seized the currency and gave her a Civil Asset Forfeiture election form on which she could tell CBP whether she abandoned the currency, would pursue an administrative process, or wanted the case referred to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for judicial proceedings. She requested the latter.

The U.S. Attorney did not act on the case within the time permitted. The legal consequence of this is that the money is to be returned to the traveler promptly. See 18 USC 983(a)(3)(B). Rather than promptly returning the funds, CBP sent the hold harmless agreement and informed her that the money would be returned in full when she signed and submitted the agreement. Rather than do that, she brought this action:

to put CBP’s policy or practice to an end, to void any Hold Harmless Agreements signed by class members as a result of this policy or practice, to recover [the named plaintiff's] seized cash and any other seized property that has not been returned to class members because they did not sign Hold Harmless Agreements, and to stop CBP from targeting her for additional, intrusive screening without giving her an adequate opportunity to challenge her classification.

One of the interesting things that is likely to come out of this case is some data on how often these seizures happen. More important, how often does CBP make a seizure that the U.S. Attorney does not pursue?

This latter question is of practical importance to lawyers who deal with seizures. If it turns out that Assistant U.S. Attorneys more often than not do not pursue civil forfeitures, then maybe it does not pay to go through the CBP administrative forfeiture process. That process is slow and it is not always clear who is making or influencing the decision. There is also the perception (and it may just be the perception) that once the seizure train starts, it is very hard to stop before it arrives at a forfeiture. There are lots of reason for this including some degree of CBP deference to port-level enforcement.

The problems are often more acute when merchandise other than currency is seized. This is because it is not always easy to figure out what storage fees might be incurred. At some point, storage can be more expensive than the value of the merchandise and the expense of hiring counsel who is familiar with the process. Importers will often cut their losses by abandoning the merchandise rather than fight what might be an unjustified seizure.

This is a case to watch. The fact that it is being brought as a class action and supported by a non-governmental partisan entity means it is less likely to go away with a quiet settlement. This case is clearly addressed to a bigger picture idea. CBP could, of course, make it go away by issuing the refund and by changing its practice.

I also think there is an issue here for Congress. As long as the law requires the declaration, there should be a clear means of doing so. Congress should require that ports (including the domestic terminals of airports from which international flights leave) prominently post the requirement to report. Furthermore, the airlines, cruise lines, and other carriers should be required to distribute the forms. In the alternative, CBP and FinCEN (the Financial Crime Enforcement Network) should make it possible to file the form online some reasonable time before departure. Seriously, we don't need people getting caught up in this for no reason other than a lack of knowledge. Moreover, we do not need to have knowledgeable travelers wandering around airports trying to find a CBP office to submit the form.

That may not fit with the Institute for Justice goal of limited government, but that's not my goal here.

Sometimes, the most interesting customs cases are not litigated at the Court of International Trade. They are in the U.S. district courts and involve important constitutional and administrative law principles not related to duties and penalties. Two of those deserve note here. This post will cover the first.

And, yes, I know there are more routine CIT and CAFC cases to address. Someone [a former government official who, despite this crack, I still like] event recently chastised me for being behind here. I promise you that my self-appointed obligation to the trade community weighs heavily on me. I will try to catch up.

But first is U.S. v. Kolsuz. This case involves CBP's suspicion-less search of a cell phone.

As background, you need to know that the law has been clear for decades that Customs and Border Protection is allowed to search cargo and the personal effects of arriving passengers without a warrant and without even particularized suspicion that they might contain evidence of a crime. In other words, as a general matter, your fourth amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure do not apply at the border. There are lots of reasons for that. Primarily it relates to the ability of a sovereign nation to control who and what cross its borders (both entering and leaving).

There are a lot of things that are not permitted into the country whether or not it is a crime to import the item. CBP protects the health and safety of the public by interdicting, for example, unsafe consumer products, equipment that does not meet environmental standards, the products of endangered species, and agricultural pests. Every now and then, it finds illegal Mongolian horse meat and genitals. CBP could not do its job if it needed a warrant or even suspicion to check whether an arriving passenger has some contraband. Similarly, there are also many things that may not leave the country without prior approval. By crossing the border, the passenger and cargo become subject to inspection for any reason or no reason whatsoever. But note that if the "inspection" were by a street cop away from the border, it would be a "search" and would require a warrant if not incident to an arrest. Remember that the next time you arrive at the border.

An issue that has been percolating for some time is whether this principle extends to the contents of your digital devices. Can CBP review the contents of a passenger's cell phone or computer? That is a potentially far more personally invasive search than is poking around in the wet bathing suits and uninvited beach sand that is in many carry-on bags arriving with passengers. People have been arguing that a search of data should require grounds beyond simply being at the border. Lately, this argument is getting some traction.

You should note that Kolsuz had previously been stopped for illegally exporting firearm parts, so he was on Customs' radar. In this case, he was at Dulles airport in Virginia attempting to board a flight to Turkey when CBP searched his luggage and found firearm parts. Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the weapons can only be exported with a license, which Kolsuz did not have. After finding the weapons, CBP conducted an on-the-spot manual search of his mobile phone. After that, CBP conducted a more detailed forensic search of his phone. That search produced a report showing his contacts, emails, instant messages, photographs, browsing history, physical locations and other personal information. The full report was almost 900 pages long and took a month to compile using specialized software.

Kolsuz moved to suppress the introduction of evidence taken from the forensic search of his phone. He did not challenge the manual search.

The Fourth Circuit noted that the law has long upheld warrantless and suspicion-less routine border searches. However, the law also requires that enforcement agents have individualized suspicions before conducting "highly invasive," non-routine searches. In the past, this has generally applied to physically, personally invasive searches of, for example, body cavities where the "dignity and privacy" of the person are at stake or searches that destroy or unreasonably damage personal property.

In Kolsuz's favor is a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision called Riley v. California. In Riley, the Supreme Court held that cells phones may only be searched incident to an arrest with a warrant based on probable cause to believe the phone contains evidence of a crime. Riley was not a border search, but it did set a bar for local police indicating that the search of a cell phone is not the same as a pat down intended to protect the arresting officer and preserve evidence.

Kolsuz's first argument was that once the phone was taken from him (for a month) and he was in custody, the rationale for the border search exception dissipated and  warrant became necessary. This makes some sense. To the extent the border search exists to allow the United States to control its borders and interdict incoming or outbound contraband, it has already served its purpose. Subsequent investigation, which involved the detailed search of personal data, should, according to this argument, require a warrant. The Court disagreed and held that because the search began as a border search and involved a transnational crime, it remained connected to the border and the border search exception applies.

The defendant's next argument was that a month-long forensic deep dive into a personal cell phone is "highly invasive" and not the kind of routine search permitted at the border without a warrant. The Court agreed that the forensic search should be considered "non-routine," involving a threat to the dignity and privacy of Kolsuz. The factors the Court found persuasive include:

• the shear amount of data stored on a modern smart phone, which greatly exceeds what could be hand carried or packed into a car if printed, and 
• the uniquely personal nature of the data on a smart phone including contacts, email, physical locations and web history.

However, it does not follow that an invasive, non-routine search at the border requires a warrant. This is where things start to fall apart for Kolsuz. The Court noted that even after Riley, there is no binding precedent holding that an invasive forensic search of a cell phone at the border requires a warrant. Rather, the CBP officers involved reasonably relied on the current understanding that a non-routine search may be conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Having previously found firearm parts in his bags, CBP had reasonable and individualized suspicion that Kolsuz's phone might contain evidence of a crime. Thus, the search was permissible.

There are other similar cases making their way through the courts. Eventually, this will end up at the Supreme Court. In the meantime, travelers take note. I have read lots of advice about encryption and burner phones and leaving all sensitive data in the cloud. I'm not going to give legal advice on this. You need to do what is appropriate. If you have concerns, talk to a lawyer.

Traveling lawyers should keep in mind that their phones and other personal devices may contain privileged information that needs special attention if stopped by CBP (or any police agency). Finally, corporate compliance policies should take this into consideration for traveling employees.

Hat tip to Peter Quinter of GrayRobinson.

Cases in which U.S. Customs and Border Protection asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to impose a civil penalty have evolved over the years I have been in practice. It used to be understood that if Customs went through the entire administrative penalty process and moved to litigation, all bets were off. The notion was that because the Court would hear the case de novo and make a decision based on the evidence presented in Court, everything was starting from scratch.

That is no longer the case. The current understanding is that civil penalty cases are collections cases in which Customs is attempting to collect the penalty it already assessed through the administrative process. This is a significant change. It means, for example, that if during the administrative process CBP only asserts that the importer was negligent , it cannot come into court asking the Court of International Trade to impose a penalty based on fraud. See, U.S. v. Optrex (CIT 2005) and U.S. v. Ford Motor Co. (Fed. Cir. 2006). By the same token, if the government goes all in and administratively asserts that the violation occurred as a result of fraud, and only fraud, it cannot fall back to gross negligence or negligence in Court. See U.S. v. Nitek Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015). There are no lesser included offenses in administrative penalty cases.

The reason for this is that CBP has failed to "exhaust" the administrative process. As a result, the future defendant has not had notice of the claim against it. Nor has the defendant had a full opportunity to respond to the claim. Absent that opportunity, CBP has not perfected its claim as required by the statute.

The fact that the Court of International Trade decides the matter de novo only means that the government must present admissible evidence of the violation to the Court. Defendants can then introduce admissible evidence showing either that no violation occurred or that it exercised the required degree of care. This is distinct from the "on the record" judicial review of other administrative matters in which the Court is limited to the record made in the administrative proceeding. The Court of International Trade also sets the penalty amount.

United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co. and Tricots Liesse 1983, Inc., a recent decision of the Court of International Trade adds even more heft to the exhaustion requirement.

The underlying issue here is a messy series of NAFTA claims, a prior disclosure, followed by an offer in compromise, and a penalty notice. The critical issue is that the Pre-Penalty Notice included the statement that the importer had the right to make an oral presentation as to why the penalty should not be imposed. There were some telephone calls between non-lawyer representatives for the importer and Customs that appear to have been related to the offer in compromise and a subsequent offer in compromise.

Counsel for the importer then sent a letter to Customs seeking a face-to-face meeting concerning the penalty claim. Customs put off the proposed meeting while litigation was pending with the surety. No meeting occurred and CBP issued the final penalty determination. When the importer did not pay, the government filed a suit in the CIT seeking to collect the assessed penalty.

In Court, the defendant contended that Customs' failure to provide the requested meeting means that it had failed to perfect a valid penalty claim. As a result, the entire claim should be dismissed. For its part, the Government contends that the multiple phone calls were sufficient opportunity for the defendant to address the issues.

The Court found that the requirement for exhaustion applies to CBP civil penalty cases. Moreover, the Court found it to be "undisputed that Customs failed to perfect its claim for a monetary penalty." In holding that the phone calls between company representatives and Customs were insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement, the Court said (citations omitted):

The record evidence demonstrates that this post Notice of Penalty telephone call was not conducted in the usual, more formal, manner in which Customs proceeds with penalty cases, and no officials from Customs’ Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures Office (the office generally charged with conducting any requested oral hearings during the pre-penalty and penalty phases of § 1592 claims) participated in the telephone call. In addition, it is undisputed that following the issuance of the Notice of Penalty, the August 3, 2013 telephone conversation, and Customs’ June 13, 2014 rejection of Tricots’ second offer in compromise, Tricots made requests for a § 1592(b) oral presentation on September 15, 2014, October 30, 2014, and November 21, 2014, more than one year before Customs issued its November 24, 2015 Final Penalty Determination. Moreover, Tricots signed waivers of the statute of limitations, “in order that [it] might obtain the benefit of the orderly continuation and conclusion of an administrative proceeding,” which effectively waived the statute of limitations through August 18, 2016. Notwithstanding Tricots’ requests and concerns, and a lack of urgency for Customs to make its Final Penalty Determination, Tricots was told that “any meeting at this time would be premature.”

This is consistent with the legislative history, which notes that the importer would have the right to make oral and written representations in a mitigation proceeding before the decision on mitigation is decided. The importer needs an opportunity to "fully resolve a penalty" before proceeding to court as a defendant. According to the Court of International Trade, that means the importer (or party charged in the penalty action) must have a meaningful opportunity for an oral presentation. The Court points to testimony characterizing this as a "hearing," which might be overstating the case, but it makes the point. The oral presentation requirement means there should be a formal meeting at which there is a full opportunity for the importer to be heard.

This is such an important part of the administrative process that the CIT did not require that the defendant show prejudice. The Court, therefore, granted summary judgment with respect to this portion of the case.

What do we learn from this? If you are in the private bar, ALWAYS ASK FOR A MEETING. If you are at CBP, ALWAYS GRANT A MEANINGFUL MEETING.

I have spent considerable time trying to summarize United States v. Rupari Food Services. I have now come to the conclusion that we are all better off if I just don't. You can read it.

When you do, you will see that for a significant time during the litigation of this matter, I served as co-counsel to the defendant along with my friend Peter Quinter of GrayRobinson. At approximately the time that Rupari filed for bankruptcy protection, we were discharged by the client. The Court entered a default judgment on the basis of the facts asserted in the complaint and for the full amount claimed by the United States.

That's very likely the end to what is a monumentally sad case.

Lawyers often have a tendency to wrongly believe that some question of particular interest to them is wholly unique and has never been addressed. The resolution of the matter, therefore, will “make new law” and put the lawyer into the legal history books. The opposite also happens. We often believe we know something to be true and assume that there must be precedent supporting whatever proposition we hope is the law.

This is a discussion of the jurisdictional merits of XYZ Corporation v. United States. If you are not up on the ins and outs of parallel (or "gray market") imports, read Part 1 of this post.

Remember what is happening here: Plaintiff, going by the pseudonym XYZ Corporation, wants a preliminary injunction to prevent Customs and Border Protection from granting Lever Rule protection to Duracell batteries imported in bulk or in retail packaging.

The first question the Court has to decide is whether it even has jurisdiction to resolve this dispute. The Court of International Trade, like all federal courts, is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. It can only act if Congress gave it the authority to do so. There are two possible bases of jurisdiction in this case.

The first is 28 USC 1581(h), which states in full (with my emphasis):

The second basis is 28 USC 1581(i)(4), which is the residual provision giving the Court jurisdiction over actions against the United States challenging CBP decisions relating to, among other things, the administration and enforcement of duties and quantitative restrictions on the importation of merchandise.

These two bases for jurisdiction are mutually exclusive. The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under section 1581(i) if it has jurisdiction under 1581(h). Thus, the question comes down to whether this challenge is properly heard in the CIT as a request for declaratory judgment under 1581(h).

The first factor is clear. This is a pre-importation review. The next question is whether the granting of Lever Rule protection to Duracell is a "ruling." In this context, a "ruling" is a determination as to the manner in which CBP will treat a completed transaction. Here, CBP has made a determination to grant Lever Rule protection against merchandise bearing the Duracell trademark, meaning it has decided how it will treat those future importations. Moreover, under Customs' own regulations, a ruling is a written statement, issued by Headquarters, published in the Customs Bulletin, interpreting the customs and related laws. The decision to grant Lever Rule protection satisfies those requirements and is, therefore, a ruling. Furthermore, it is a ruling about restricted merchandise, making it appropriate subject matter for declaratory judgment.

The next of the elements required to secure (h) jurisdiction is where things usually fall apart: irreparable harm. More often than not, a customs can be resolved with a refund of duties, taxes, and fees, plus interest. That means there is almost always a way to repair the harm, making (h) inapplicable. But, there are things a money judgment can't fix such as loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, loss of future business opportunities, etc. Here, XYZ  showed that it has lost sales and suffered damage to its business reputation as a result of the grant of Lever Rule protection to Duracell. It has shown through an affidavit and testimony that customers are concerned about potential repercussions from the owners of the Duracell mark. Plaintiff also faces great uncertainty regarding whether its shipments will be released. These are significant, non-monetary harms that cannot be remedied through a refund of duties or other money judgment.

As a result of these conclusions, the Court of International Trade found that it has 1581(h) jurisdiction to hear this challenge to the extension of Lever Rule protection. That means that is does not have jurisdiction under 1581(i).

The next set of questions has to do with whether the plaintiff in this case has standing to challenge the CBP determination. "Standing" is the legal requirement that the plaintiff have a legitimate interest in the litigation. It typically means that the plaintiff must be the party that was injured. You can't sue the driver who caused an accident if you were miles away and uninjured. Here, XYZ is an importer of the affected merchandise and has complained of an injury to its business as a direct consequence of CBP's action. It has standing to sue.

The last question is whether the issue is ripe for decision. Generally, federal courts will only review final agency action. Here, CBP issued its final notice and declared that Lever Rule protection would commence. That is a final agency action. Furthermore, the issue is ready for resolution; all the relevant facts are known and the legal issue can be decided.

All of which means that this case is properly before the Court of International Trade.

The Court has denied the requested preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Lever Rule protections. That is because the relief available under (h) us limited to declaratory judgment with prospective application to future imports.

But, this case is far from over. There is still the question of whether the grant of Lever Rule protection requires public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). If it does, the grant of Lever Rule protection in this case, and potentially all prior cases, is void. That would be a big deal. The Court has ordered the parties to confer and submit a scheduling order for the resolution of the remaining issues. In other words, the Court will likely have to decide whether the regulations implementing the Lever Rule are consistent with the requirements of the APA and possibly the due process clause.

This will be an interesting case to follow.

More to come. I am sitting on a penalty case and the important philosophical question of whether chewing gum is food. And, we might have to talk about bankruptcy law.

Every now and then a case shows up at the Court of International Trade that does not fit into the normal baskets of what tends to happen there. One such case is XYZ Corporation v. United States.

Here is some background. U.S. law says that only the trademark owner or someone authorized by the trademark owner can import products into the United States bearing the mark. That makes sense and it is how the law is usually described. But, it is also incomplete.

The law also provides that once someone buys the physical item bearing the mark, that person can do pretty much what he or she wants with it, including resell it and import it. That is the principal of trademark exhaustion. The idea is that through the authorized sale, the trademark owner has been fully compensated and has no lingering rights to control the further disposition of the product.

That creates an opportunity for entrepreneurs. If a company can find a good deal on shampoo, chocolates, or Mexican cola in some foreign market, it can import the goods into the United States and sell them here at a profit. This is the business model on which many discounters and on-line sellers operate. It is perfectly legal . . . up to a point.

The problem for parallel importers (or "gray market" importers) is that U.S. trademark law still does not allow the use of a trademark in a way that that is likely to cause confusion as to the attributes of the product. Assume you go into your local deep discount shop to buy a bar of Shield soap, because that is what you always buy and you expect it to work they way you like it to work. You see the familiar Shield label, grab a bar, and run home for a shower. Unfortunately, your shower is unsatisfying because the soap does not lather properly and maybe smells a little funny. What gives?



What happened is that you bought a perfectly cromulent bar of soap authorized by Lever Bros., the owners of the Shield trademark. It is just that the particular bar you bought at a steep discount was intended for some other country, not the U.S. It was formulated specifically for consumer preferences and conditions in that country and does not work well in the U.S. Lever Bros. never intended for it to be sold in the U.S. But, they lost control over that bar of soap when it was sold in an authorized channel abroad.

Those facts resulted in the famous Lever Bros. Co v. United States, a 1989 decision on the legality of parallel imports of authentic trademarked products. The upshot of that case is that parallel imports are generally legal. But, if the product is materially different than the product authorized for sale in the United States, then consumers may be deceived as to the nature of what they are buying. Consequently, U.S. trademark holders are permitted to seek the exclusion of imports that bear legitimate trademarks but are nonetheless materially different from the local versions. This is the Lever Rule.

Customs has implemented the Lever Rule in a kind of tricky way. First, it defines "restricted gray market goods" as "foreign-made articles bearing a genuine trademark or trade name identical with or substantially indistinguishable from one owned and recorded [with CBP] by a citizen of the United States or a corporation or association created or organized within the United States and imported without the authorization of the U.S. owner." 19 CFR 133.23(a). I say this is "tricky," because you will note that goods meeting this definition are not actually restricted; they will be prevented from entering the U.S. only in limited circumstances. The qualifiers are important.

Restricted gray market merchandise must have a trademark that was:

1. Applied by licensee independent of the U.S. trademark owner (and, presumably, not under its control);
2. Applied by the foreign trademark owner or under its authority, provided that the foreign trademark owner is not the U.S. trademark owner, its parent, its subsidiary, or otherwise under common control or ownership (again, note we are talking about a foreign party not under the control of the U.S. trademark owner); or
3. Applied by the U.S. trademark owner or someone under its ownership or control but applied to goods that are materially different from the articles authorized for distribution in the U.S.

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the Court of International Trade's holding that a surety is be liable for statutory interest but not for equitable interest when the importer defaults on the payment of antidumping duties. What follows is heavy on law, short on fact, and important to sureties and also importers. The case is United States v. American Home Assurance Company.

When importers fail to pay duties, taxes, and fees to the U.S. government, the government can collect interest on the unpaid portion. If the importer defaults, the surety becomes liable up to the value of the bond, unless the surety has a defense it can assert (and [spoiler] actually asserts it). In this case, the importer defaulted on the payment of antidumping duties and Customs tried to collect the duties and interest from the surety. There was no question about the liability for the duties. The questions presented has to do with interest.

There are multiple bases for the interest. First, interest is available to the United States under 19 U.S.C. 1505(d), which states:

If duties, fees, and interest determined to be due or refunded are not paid in full within the 30-day period specified in subsection (b), any unpaid balance shall be considered delinquent and bear interest by 30-day periods, at a rate determined by the Secretary, from the date of liquidation or reliquidation until the full balance is paid. No interest shall accrue during the 30-day period in which payment is actually made.

Separate from that, 19 U.S.C. 580 provides:

Upon all bonds, on which suits are brought for the recovery of duties, interest shall be allowed, at the rate of 6 per centum a year, from the time when said bonds became due.

On top of that, there is a thing called "equitable prejudgment interest," which is not statutory and derives from the judicially perceived need to compensate the United States for the loss of the use of money owed to it from the time the obligation to pay accrued until a judgment ordering payment is entered. This is a traditional rule established by judges, not by Congress.

Starting with equitable prejudgment interest, the United States appealed the Court of International Trade's decision to deny prejudgment equitable interest. The Federal Circuit held that equitable remedies are generally unavailable when there is an adequate statutory remedy. Section 580 would appear to provide a statutory remedy at the relatively high rate of 6%, making the government whole. There is, however, a wrinkle in this case in that the recent Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 expressly permits the government to recover both equitable prejudgment interest and statutory interest under section 580.

Nevertheless, equitable interest remains equitable in nature. The fact that Congress recognized that the Court of International Trade might award equitable interest does not mean the CIT must do so. Here, the Federal Circuit held that the CIT properly considered the equitable factors and concluded that the government was sufficient compensated by the statutory interest. Thus, the denial of additional equitable interest was proper.

Regarding the section 580 interest, the issue was not the availability of the remedy, which is clearly permitted under the statute. Rather, the surety argued that the CIT improperly permitted section 580 interest to be calculated on top of the section 1505(d) interest, putting interest on interest. The surety also argued that the relevant date for when interest should start to run is the date of denial of the protest rather than the first demand for payment.

On the first question, the Federal Circuit interpreted section 508 as clearly permitting interest on the entire bond amount, including 1505 interest. This would obligate the surety to pay interest on interest up to the amount of the bond. Regarding timing, the Court said section 508 is "clear and unambiguous" that the interest clock begins to run on the government's first formal demand.

The issue with respect to section 1505 interest was different. This is the legal question of whether the surety waived its right to content the interest by failing to challenge the denial of the protest and pay the duties and fees owed. The underlying rationale here is that decisions by Customs imposing charges or exactions on an importer are final and conclusive unless a protest of law suit contesting the liquidation is properly commenced. A surety is permitted to challenge a charge or exaction through an administrative protest. The fact that the interest is assessed after liquidation, does not change its nature as a protestable charge. Here, Customs denied the protest. At that point, is the defendant wanted to challenge the charge, it needed to file a summons in the Court of International Trade. For whatever reason, AHAC chose not to exercise that right and the decision became final and conclusive.

The latter point is very important. Where an importer or surety disagrees with Customs' efforts to collect duties, taxes, fees or interest, it must challenge the charge or exaction. Failing to protest will result in a final and conclusive assessment and will divest the importer or surety of the right to challenge it when sued in the CIT. I'm not happy with this result. It produces a waiver of defenses that many importers may not understand or appreciate. It is, however, the law.

The United States Supreme Court has made it easier for discount retailers and "off-brand" Amazon resellers to import and sell refurbished goods, which is good news for bargain seekers.

First, a little background. Intellectual property rights like patents, trademarks, and copyrights are a deal that inventors, artists, and brand innovators make with the United States government. To promote the activity of these creative enterprises, the government grants a limited monopoly on the sale or exploitation of the work. That is why you can't make a copy of Star Wars Rogue One for 95 years, at which time it will fall into the public domain. Similarly, you can't start making your own version of the latest antibiotic because the company that put in the effort on research and development most likely owns the patent.

But, the scope of intellectual property rights is limited. With respect to patents, the law give the patent holder the "right to exclude others from  making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention. However, the law includes an exception that applies when the patentee sells the item. At that point, the product is the private individual property of the purchaser, who acquires all the rights of ownership, including the right to re-sell that item. This is why although you can resell your smartphone, you can't reproduce it. The same goes for music files and your trademarked running shoes. This is the rule of exhaustion.

In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether Lexmark could contractually prohibit purchasers of toner cartridges from reselling them. Lexmark did this to keep the cartridges out of the hands of companies like Impression Products, that refurbish, refill, and resell the cartridges at a discount and in direct competition with Lexmark.

To discourage this activity, Lexmark set up two sales channels. In one channel, customers paid "full price" for an unrestricted toner cartridge. In the other channel, called the "Return Program," Lexmark offered a 20% discount in exchange for adding a microchip to the cartridge. The chip contained software that prevent the reuse of the cartridge. In this channel, the purchaser contractually agreed not to transfer the cartridge to anyone other than back to Lexmark. While this was a clever strategy, third parties figured out how to circumvent the chip, allowing the resellers to continue in business.

Lexmark sued Impressions for patent infringement, arguing that it did not acquire the right to use or sell the cartridge. The idea here is not unreasonable. By taking part in the Return Program, the purchaser acquired limited rights and did not acquire the right to resell the cartridge. Under normal principles of commercial law, the purchaser cannot resell more rights than it acquired. Thus, the resale should violate the patent. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed and held in favor of Lexmark.

The Supreme Court, via Chief Justice Roberts, took a different path. The analysis starts with a quotation from 17th Century Lord Coke who said that "in an owner restricts the resale or use of an item after selling it, that restriction 'is voide, because . . . it is against Trade and Traffique, and bargaining and contracting betweene man and man." According to the Court, this is more than an old statement of common law. Rather, it is a principle that Congress has allowed to remain in the patent laws. Without the exhaustion principle, we would not have used car dealers because patentees for individual parts might sue the dealership for repairing and reselling the car and the parts it contains. Consequently, the express reservation of rights by the patentee to the original purchaser does not give the seller a continuing interest in that item.

One additional wrinkle in this case was that some of the cartridges were first sold outside the United States. Thus, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the foreign sale exhausted the U.S. patent rights. Lexmark argued that exhaustion as a result of a foreign sale would interfere with the U.S. market and prevent it from reaping the full value of its patent monopoly. The Supreme Court was unmoved. It said, "the Patent Act does not guarantee a particular price, much less the price from selling to American consumers. Instead, the right to exclude just ensures that the patentee receives one reward--of whatever amount the patentee deems to be 'satisfactory compensation' . . . --for every item that passes outside the scope of the patent monopoly." In other words, Lexmark got paid for those sales outside the U.S. at whatever price it deemed appropriate.

This is the second in a series of Supreme Court victories for parallel importers, also known as gray market importers. The first involved copyrights in textbooks. You can read that here. On the trademark front, the law is more complicated and depends on whether the merchandise is materially different than the products sold in the United States and on whether the trademark was applied outside the United States under the control or ownership of the U.S. trademark holder. If you are interested in that, start here.

Overall, this will permit the free market in the resale of patented goods. That is, as I said, good news for discount retailers and small-scale entrepreneurs. Patentees may adjust quickly, though. The decision makes it clear that this result only applies to sales. If the good is transferred subject to a license and ownership stays with the patentee, then the licensee has no right to resell the item. Expect future toner cartridges to come with license agreements.

There have not been many specifically customs-related cases from the courts of late. There have been plenty of rulings, in fact there have been rulings every week. I just have not had a chance to blog them. That is why things have been slow here. I have been tossing out the occasional tweet on agency actions and newsworthy developments. If you are not doing so already, please follow my Twitter feed @customslawblog or check it in the box on this page.

In the meantime, the Court of International Trade issued an opinion in United States v. International Trading Services. This decision is fairly uncomplicated decision the defendant in this penalty case failed to show up and defend itself. If you recall the earlier decision in this matter, you will understand why. The corporate client dissolved, leaving the lawyer, in his mind, without a client to represent. The lawyer tried to formally withdraw from the case but was rebuffed by the Court which held that the legal entity remained subject to suit under Florida law and, therefore, still needs a lawyer.

The underlying penalty here has to do with the incorrect classification of sugar on eight entries. The error resulted in just under $300 thousand in unpaid duties. The United States, on behalf of Customs and Border Protection, moved to collect the duties and a penalty of two times the unpaid amount. The defendant did not respond. As result, there was no real doubt that the Court would impose a penalty. The question was how much.

This is a good decision to read because it very logically walks through the process the Court of International Trade undertakes to assess a penalty. The first question is whether there was a material false statement or omission in connection with the entry of merchandise. A statement or omission is material if it would tend to alter Customs' appraisement or the importer's liability for duties. An incorrect classification that results in the underpayment of duty is material. Once the Court identifies a material false statement or omission, the defendant has the burden of proving that it did not result from negligence, gross negligence or fraud. As the defendants did not respond, the facts asserted in the motion are treated as true. That means there was no question as to liability.

Customs was seeking to recover about $691 thousand in penalties. But, setting the penalty amount is the responsibility of the judge, not Customs. The Court, therefore, walked through the 14 factors set out in a case called Complex Machine Works, which is worth a read for background. Here, Judge Barnett took the very helpful step of grouping those 14 factors into five broader categories. Those are:

1. The defendant's character
2. The seriousness of the offense
3. The practical effect of the imposition of the penalty
4. The economic benefit gained by the defendant
5. Public policy concerns

Had I been thinking and available to do it, I would have posted this on April 20. Sorry I am late.

Grab some snacks, because we are about to discuss HQ H282163 (Apr. 13, 2017), which addresses whether a storage case with multiple adjustable compartments and a combination lock closure is prohibited merchandise.

Why would that be the case? It might help to know that the cases go by the name "Stashlogix" and come in three modes: Go-Stash, Eco-Stash and Pro-Stash. In addition to the combination lock, other Stashlogix features include a "stash journal" to "help keep track of all those crazy names," a UV-proof jar that can be re-labeled, odor absorbing packs, and a labeling marker. The products are designed "based on the principles of functionality, security, and discretion." The company advertises that the cases are used to store valuable private items such as fire-arms and addictive pharmaceuticals.

Here is a picture of the "Pro-Stash" case:

any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana . . . .

1. instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use;
2. descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use;
3. national and local advertising concerning its use;
4. the manner in which the item is displayed for sale;
5. whether the owner, or anyone in control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
6. direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total sales of the business enterprise;
7. the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and
8. expert testimony concerning its use.

Given all of this, the legal question is whether the Stashlogix cases are "primarily intended for use" and "designed for use" in, among other things, concealing a controlled substance. These are to be considered objectively and with respect to the likely use of the item, not a specific or individual use. My example of the well-organized chef, does not help if the most likely use is by the Stoner Mom and her stoner ilk.

So, what is the evidence of intended use and design?

First, the odor absorbing packets are described as providing "discretion." According to Customs and Border Protection, the intent and likely use of these packets is to conceal the odor of weed.

What about the UV-proof jars? Initially, I thought the intent was to preserve the contents by blocking UV light; like putting beer in an amber or green bottle. Apparently, my weed knowledge is limited. According to Customs, the specific type of glass involved here has the capacity to absorb UV light and also X-rays. That means the jars are designed and intended to help conceal, rather than preserve, the contents.

Marketing for the bags did not help. As mentioned, they are sold along side other bags that are more explicitly for the storage of pot by retailers expressly catering to stoners. It is hard to say whether that marketing should be imputed to Stashlogix. The fact that Stoner Mom and other bloggers find the bag useful is not really direct evidence of Stashlogix's design and intent.

On the other hand, Stashlogix does not seem to have gone out of its way to break that association. Stashlogix does not explicitly say it makes and imports stash bags for stoners. It says it provides locking cases for people looking to discretely store private items. Those private items could be prescription medications, weapons, or anything else. A post on its website includes this picture: