US Opposes Motion Asking It to File More Definite Complaint in Duty Collection Case
In one of several cases brought by the United States against surety bond company Aegis Security, DOJ opposed a motion by Aegis asking for a more definite complaint (see 2505140077). The complaint provided enough information for Aegis to reasonably file a response, it said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00051).
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.
“We anticipate that Aegis is seeking a more detailed complaint so that it can raise certain affirmative defenses at the pleading stage (e.g., a statute-of-limitations defense),” it said.
But, at this stage in the litigation proceeding, DOJ isn’t obligated to plead any facts that would support a defendant’s affirmative defense, it claimed. It also noted that Aegis has been able to raise defenses at the summary judgement stage in other cases for which the surety company is a defendant.
Motions for a more definite complaint can’t substitute for discovery, DOJ said. Because they aren’t intended “to convert a pleading into an evidentiary record,” they only succeed when “a ‘complaint is unintelligible’ or the defendant ‘cannot decipher the claims against it,’” it said. Aegis was making neither claim, DOJ argued.
And the complaint did allege enough to let the surety company reasonably respond, the government said. In particular, the complaint “alleges that Aegis (1) issued 28 specific single-transaction bonds to a specific importer, identified by specific entry numbers, (2) the terms of which incorporated a regulation requiring Aegis to pay on Customs’ demand, and that (3) Aegis did not pay the amounts due on the bonds on demand,” it said.
No more is necessary for a complaint alleging breach of contract, it said.
It also said that it isn’t required to provide a more detailed complaint in this case just because it has done so in others.
The U.S. already has lost one case it brought against the company after waiting eight years to seek payment of outstanding duties (see 2403180059 and 2405290067), and there are several more (see 2503210069 and 2504180051).