Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

August 7, 2013 by PKR

Federal Circuit Highlights Need for Importer of Record Reform

Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturned the Court of International Trade (CIT) in a 19 U.S.C. § 1592 enforcement action, Trek Leather, Inc. v. United States.  Trek in 2004 imported suits without disclosing the value of its U.S.-made fabric (“assists”), resulting in unpaid duties.  The CIT in 2011 found Trek and its sole shareholder, Harish Shadadpuri, jointly and severally liable for a penalty of more than a half million dollars.

Trek conceded that it was grossly negligent and did not appeal.  Mr. Shadadpuri – who was neither the importer of record (IOR) nor a customs broker – disputed his liability.  The CIT agreed with CBP that the statutory term “person” covered Mr. Shadadpuri, who was informed by CBP about having to declare the value of assists in 2002 when another company partially owned by him paid more than $45,000 in unpaid duties for failing to do so.

The CAFC ruled that only IORs are liable for penalties because the statutory scheme prevents the term “person” from being read in isolation.  Given this legislative context, an individual who is not the IOR can only be liable for penalties through either personal fraud or piercing the corporate veil.  The majority expressed bewilderment that the United States did not pursue such approaches to hold Mr. Shadadpuri liable, while the dissent said such steps were not necessary.

This ruling underscores the inadequacy of the current bare minimum IOR requirements.  IORs can at present be “shell” corporations that go insolvent to avoid penalties, while related individuals are not automatically liable – even if they are the sole owner and have knowledge of the import impropriety, as Mr. Shadadpuri was alleged to have done.  Fortunately, last year, Congress demonstrated awareness of this problem and proposed corrective measures as part of the Customs Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Act of 2012 (H.R. 6642).  In particular, sections 221, 222, 223, and 224 of that proposed legislation would enhance regulatory control over IORs and discourage the proliferation of “shell” corporations created to evade U.S. law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Customs, International Law, International Trade Tagged With: CAFC, CBP, CIT, import fraud, surety

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • Uncollected Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Exceed $3 Billion in FY2017
  • Court of International Trade Rejects Importer’s Efforts to Collaterally Challenge Application of China Countrywide Antidumping Duty Rate

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.