CIT Denies Ford Motor's Claims for Reconcilation Duty Refunds
In Ford Motor Company, v. U.S. et al., the Court of International Trade denied Ford’s request to liquidate and refund duties paid on ten reconciliation entries of imported Jaguar brand vehicles. The CIT dismissed all of Ford’s claims on grounds ranging from lack of case or controversy, lack of jurisdiction, mootness, or in some instances, at the Court’s discretion.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Between 2005 and 2006, Ford filed ten reconciliation entries which Ford asserted should have been deemed liquidated after one year from the date of filing. Ford put forward seven claims or causes for this action. Certain claims applied to one or two specific entries, while others addressed all ten entries. The CIT noted that since Ford brought suit, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had liquidated a number of the entries, and Ford’s understanding of the facts had also changed.
The CIT dismissed claims one, five and six in their entirety due to lack of jurisdiction or controversy (the duties had already been refunded to Ford, or the entries were not liquidated, but had been extended), because the entries had been liquidated and were subject to a separate lawsuit pursuant to 28 U S C 1581(a), or because the entries had been un-liquidated, but had been extended.
Claims two, three and four dealt with the extension or suspension of the entries. The CIT dismissed these claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction or controversy insofar as they applied to those entries that had been liquidated or because they were subject to a separate lawsuit filed in the CIT pursuant to 28 U S C 1581(a). Although the Court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over claims two, three, and four insofar as they applied to entries not yet liquidated, the CIT decided not to issue a judgment on these entries.
Finally, the CIT turned to Ford’s seventh claim, in which it requested the Court enjoin CBP from requesting additional information from Ford until a decision was rendered on the request for a judgment on claims one to six. Since claims one to six had been dismissed by the Court for the reasons stated above, the Court dismissed claim seven as moot.
(CIT Slip Op 10-80, dated 07/22/10)