Fraud Date of Discovery Runs From Date Evidence Received, Not Allegation, DOJ Says
An importer’s contention that the date of discovery for statute of limitations purposes is the date the allegations of misconduct were submitted to CBP “exhibits a profound misunderstanding” of how government investigations work and of the concept of fraud, DOJ said in a Sept. 22 brief opposing the importer’s request for rehearing (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
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.
Greenlight Organic is asking the Court of International Trade to reconsider its recent decision denying it victory in a customs penalty case based on its argument that the five-year time limit for bringing suit for customs fraud had expired by the time the government filed suit (see 2208250069). It says the five years run from the date that a competitor filed a complaint letter with CBP.
“No amount of bold typeface can mask how derisory is the notion that fraud is discovered when an allegation is made or an investigation is opened,” the brief said. Whether fraud occurred is a question of fact, based on when CBP made a factual determination that fraud occurred. That could not have happened before Greenlight turned over its records and CBP discovered the importer’s double invoicing scheme, the DOJ brief said.
“Defendants failed to meet any of the requirements for reconsideration of a court order under Rule 54(b),” the brief said. “There are no new facts, there is no new law, and the Court’s opinion -- that facts remain in dispute and will be resolved at trial -- represents no clear error or manifest injustice.”