Corrected Version : Recent CIT Decisions on $17 Million Negligence Penalty, Dismissing Pending HMT Export Cases
CIT assesses $17 million 1592 penalty for negligence in reporting transaction prices, lump sum payments, etc. In U.S. v. Ford Motor Company, the Court of International Trade (CIT) assessed a 1592 civil penalty against Ford in the amount of two times the loss of revenue (the maximum penalty for negligence under 19 USC 1592(a)(3)). The CIT's ruling resulted in a penalty of $17,151.923.60 plus interest, regarding vehicles, vehicle components, tooling, and related materials entered into the U.S. between January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1992, as Ford failed to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable care regarding certain assists and lump sum payments.
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.
According to the CIT, these goods were entered under five import programs, and this civil action was the result of Operation Hat Trick, a Customs trade enforcement initiative meant to subject certain Big Three import programs to scrutiny to identify undeclared assists (items provided by the buyer to the seller either free or at a reduced cost for the design, development or production of merchandise imported into the U.S.) and indirect payments (i.e., payments that impact the final price paid, including lump sum payments for engineering and manufacturing expenses, retroactive price adjustments, and volume price adjustments).
The CIT ruled that for tooling assists made between 1987 - 1992, Ford failed to declare them on its entry documents or "at once" in accordance with 19 USC 1485, and instead provided the information well after entry. The CIT also ruled that Ford failed to state on its entry documents that the values stated therein were not final (due to its obligation to make lump sum payments (post-importation price adjustments)) to certain foreign vendors after entry). In addition, Ford failed to report these lump sum payments "at once" pursuant to 19 USC 1485 or its Reconciliation Agreement that required it to report and reconcile lump sum payments on an annual basis within a specified time period. (Slip Op. 05-87, dated 07/21/05, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op05/05-87.pdf)
CIT rules that pending HMF export cases should be dismissed. In U.S. Shoe Corp. vs. U.S., the CIT agreed with the U.S. and ruled that all Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) actions involving waterborne exports pending after December 1, 2005 should be dismissed, unless the plaintiff involved files a motion by September 26, 2005 to stay the dismissal of its action. In addition, the CIT ruled that any plaintiff whose action also contains a non-HMT claim, and who intends to pursue that claim, should file a motion to sever the non-HMT claim into a new case by September 26, 2005.
The U.S. had argued that all HMT issues have been resolved and all HMT claims have been paid pursuant to U.S. vs. US Shoe Corp or Swisher Int'l Inc. vs. U.S. (Slip Op. 05-89, dated 07/27/05, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op05/05-89.pdf)
(Note that the HMT is also referred to as the HMF (Harbor Maintenance Fee).)
BP Note on Correction Regarding HMT Exports
Note that in the August 1, 2005 issue of International Trade Today, 05080130, it was mistakenly stated that this CIT decision pertained to waterborne imports. However, this CIT decision pertains to waterborne exports.