US Asks for More Words to Issue Reply in Case Looking to Collect 14-Year-Old Bond
The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
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.
DOJ filed the case at the CIT to collect on 10 entries subject to antidumping duties on garlic from China that liquidated in 2006. However, CBP did not bill Aegis until 2014, despite what the surety argues is the six-year statute of limitations set by 28 USC 2415(a). CBP argues the six-year period runs from CBP’s demand for payment from a surety, but Aegis says this upends the surety industry’s understanding that it runs from the date of liquidation, and effectively removes any finality as to when CBP can collect on a customs bond (see 2109210086).
In moving to expand its word limit, the U.S. said that the amount of information in the case that needs analysis "is voluminous." After an initial round of briefs and oral argument, the court let the parties conduct discovery on issues not discussed in the previous dispositive motions. Discovery led to "several rounds of document disclosures and the disposition of three witnesses," so the U.S. said it needs more words to discuss these new elements of the case.
Further, the issues "are complex," DOJ said. "The Government’s theory of recovery is based, in part, upon an interpretation of law not previously resolved in this Court. The briefing of this issue necessitates analysis by both parties of contract law, statutory interpretation, customs law, and the equitable doctrines of laches and impairment of suretyship. These issues are not only numerous but significantly intertwined. Addressing them properly requires a thorough discussion." Counsel for Aegis consented to the motion.