Recent Court Decisions on Untimely Filings, Mistakes of Fact
CAFC Reverses Ruling that the Government's Litigation Filing is Untimely by 1 Day.In U.S. v. Inn Foods, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) finding that litigation filed by the U.S. on December 14, 2001 to collect Customs duties and fees from Inn Foods for violations of 19 USC 1592 was untimely by one day.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Inn Foods had argued, and the CIT had concurred, that a two-year extension of a December 14, 1999 waiver of the statute of limitations had expired on December 13, 2001.
Customs had argued that the statute of limitations expired on the anniversary of the commencement date of the waiver, December 14, 2001, pursuant to CIT Rule 6(a), among other things.
The CAFC has ruled that because Rule 6(a) sets forth the default rule for computing the ending date of a limitations period, a limitations statute or waiver must have language that is clearly distinguishable from that of Rule 6(a) if it is to be construed to require a different counting method.
As the CAFC found that the language of the waiver is quite close to that of Rule 6(a), the CAFC ruled that it is governed by the Rule 6(a) counting method. (See ITT's Online Archives or 02/03/04 news, 04020320, for BP summary of the CIT's decision.) (CAFC Court No. 04-1035, dated 09/13/04, available at http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1035.doc)
CIT Rules in favor of 1520(c)(1) "Mistake of Fact" Reliquidation.In Xerox Corporation v. U.S., the CIT ruled that pursuant to 19 USC 1520(c)(1), Customs must provide Xerox with a refund of duties mistakenly paid for 11 entries of laser printer units that were misclassified by one of Xerox's customs brokers.
According to the CIT, to successfully obtain a reliquidation under 19 USC 1520(c)(1), it must be demonstrated that (1) there was a mistake of fact, (2) the mistake must not amount to an error in the construction of the law; (3) the mistake is adverse to the importer; and (4) the mistake is established by documentary evidence.
Because Xerox met this burden and proved that its customs broker mistakenly relied on incorrect invoice descriptions for classifying its merchandise, the CIT rules that Xerox is to receive the refund of duties it seeks on these entries. (CIT Slip Op. 04-113, dated 09/08/04, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op04/slipop%2004-113.pdf)