Ford Motor Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 11–145.Court No. 03–00115.

Decision Date28 November 2011
Docket NumberSlip Op. 11–145.Court No. 03–00115.
Citation800 F.Supp.2d 1349,33 ITRD 2319
PartiesFORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP (Ned H. Marshak, Robert B. Silverman, and Frances P. Hadfield), New York, NY, and Paulsen K. Vandevert (Of Counsel), Dearborn, MI, for plaintiff Ford Motor Company.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Barbara S. Williams, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Edward F. Kenny, New York, NY); Office of Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United States Customs and Border Protection (Beth C. Brotman, Of Counsel), for defendant United States.

OPINION

BARZILAY, Senior Judge:

This case returns to the court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 550 (Fed.Cir.2011). In its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (Ford) challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (“Customs”) denial of Ford's claims for reliquidation of certain entries and a refund of duties pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d). Pl.'s Br. 8–28. Defendant United States cross-moves for summary judgment, arguing that the § 1520(d) claims were untimely because Ford did not file its North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) certificates of origin—a requisite component of the claims—within one year of importation.1 Def.'s Br. 5–15. Plaintiff responds that Customs' regulation 19 C.F.R. § 10.112 excuses the late filing of its certificates. Pl.'s Br. 8–11, 13–20; Pl.'s Resp. 6–15. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a). For the reasons below, the court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

Between January 1997 and January 1999, Ford imported certain automotive parts into the United States from Canada. Def.'s Br. 2. The parties have agreed to use Entry No. 231–2787386–9, imported on June 27, 1997, as a representative entry to resolve the legal issues before the court. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Undisputed Facts”) 1–2. Ford did not at the time of entry assert that the goods were eligible for duty-free treatment under NAFTA and Customs liquidated the goods as entered. Undisputed Facts 2. On May 13, 1998, Ford electronically filed post-importation Claim No. 3801–98–351235 and therein sought a refund of the duties it paid and reliquidation of its entry pursuant to § 1520(d). Undisputed Facts 3. Ford did not submit copies of the certificates of origin for this entry until November 5, 1998, more than one year after the date of importation. Undisputed Facts 4. Customs at the Port of Detroit denied Ford's claim, stating that [t]he NAFTA Certificate of Origin was not furnished within one year of the date of importation.” Undisputed Facts 5. Ford protested the denial of its § 1520(d) claim and Customs denied this protest on the same grounds on August 29, 2002. HQ 228654 (Aug. 29, 2002), available at 2002 WL 31641984. Ford challenged this denial before the court. On January 12, 2010, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Ford's suit on the grounds that Customs had not made a protestable decision in denying Ford's refund claim. On March 21, 2011, however, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Ford Motor Co., 635 F.3d 550.

II. Standard of Review

An action warrants summary judgment “if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c). “A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Marriott Int'l Resorts, L.P. v. United States, 586 F.3d 962, 968 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court reviews Customs' denial of a protest de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1). A Customs decision does not enjoy a statutory presumption of correctness on questions of law, Universal Elecs. v. United States, 112 F.3d 488, 492 (Fed.Cir.1997), but may be entitled to “respect proportional to its ‘power to persuade.’ United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 220, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)). The degree of respect the Court accords “will depend upon the thoroughness evident in [Customs'] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161.

III. Discussion

Under NAFTA Article 502(3), importers may file post-importation claims for refunds of duties paid on goods that would have qualified for preferential tariff treatment when entered. North American Free Trade Agreement art. 502(3), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993). Congress codified this provision in § 1520(d), which, like Article 502(3), requires that refund claims be filed “within 1 year after the date of importation” and include (1) “a written declaration that the good qualified under the applicable rules at the time of importation,” (2) “copies of all applicable NAFTA Certificates of Origin,” and (3) “such other documentation and information relating to the importation of the goods as the Customs Service may require.” 2 § 1520(d)(1)(3). As directed by the statute, Customs enacted implementing regulations that reaffirm the one-year time limitation on refund claims, see 19 C.F.R. § 181.31, and specify five requisite components of a claim, including copies of all certificates of origin for the entries, see § 181.32(b)(1)(5).

Plaintiff argues that § 1520(d) and the governing regulations do not require importers to file the certificates of origin within one year. Pl.'s Br. 11–12; Pl.'s Resp. 13–14. Instead, Plaintiff interprets the time restriction as applying only to § 1520(d) “claims,” as distinguished from the accompanying certificates.3 Pl.'s Br. 11–12; Pl.'s Resp. 13–14.

Customs rejected this argument in its denial of Ford's protest. See HQ 228654. There, Customs found that a valid refund claim exists only when the importer has filed all the documentation that § 1520(d) and § 181.32(b)(1)(5) require, including copies of applicable certificates of origin. Id. at 7. Customs noted that no language in the statute or regulations restricts the one-year limitation to only the first element of the claim, the written declaration. Id.; see § 1520(d)(1); § 181.32(b)(1). Following this clear logic, Customs concluded that importers must file all components of a claim, including copies of the certificates of origin, within one year of importation.4 HQ 228654 at 7–8, 12–14.

The analysis in HQ 228654 is thorough and well-reasoned. Customs grounded its conclusions in the plain language of § 1520(d) and §§ 181.31–.32 and responded adequately to Ford's arguments on protest (some of which Ford now repeats before the court). See id. at 8–15. Notably, Customs' interpretation accords with the court's own, de novo reading of the relevant authority. The court therefore finds that HQ 228654 is entitled to Skidmore deference and that § 1520(d) and the implementing regulations require importers to file within one year of importation copies of applicable certificates of origin.5

Plaintiff avers that the one-year limitation cannot apply to all elements of a § 1520(d) claim because the final statutory element, § 1520(d)(3), requires importers to supply “such other documentation and information” that Customs may require. Pl.'s Br. 12–13. Ford reasons that Customs could request additional information from importers pursuant to this subsection more than one year after importation and that, as a result, the court cannot interpret the one-year requirement as extending to all elements of the claim. Pl.'s Br. 12–13. As noted, Customs has already enumerated the requisite “other documentation and information” in subsections (3) through (5) of § 181.32(b). See § 181.32(b)(3)(5); see also HQ 228654 at 14. These subsections require the importer to file certain information regarding third parties' knowledge of the entries and other existing claims and protests. See § 181.32(3)(5). Importers must similarly file these statements within one year of importation. See id.; see also HQ 228654 at 14. This argument is therefore unavailing.

The court turns next to Plaintiff's argument that § 1520(d) must be read in harmony with Customs' regulation § 10.112. Because the statute directs that refund claims be administered “in accordance with regulations prescribed by [Customs],” Plaintiff maintains that § 10.112 applies and excuses the untimely filing of its certificates of origin. Pl.'s Br. 8–11, 13–20; Pl.'s Resp. 6–15. Section 10.112 provides that

[w]henever a free entry or a reduced duty document, form, or statement required to be filed in connection with the entry is not filed at the time of the entry or within the period for which a bond was filed for its production, but failure to file it was not due to willful negligence or fraudulent intent, such document, form, or statement may be filed at any time prior to liquidation of the entry or, if the entry was liquidated, before the liquidation becomes final.

19 C.F.R. § 10.112. The Court has previously found that this “remedial regulation” deserves broad interpretation. See, e.g., Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. United States, 21 CIT 1083, 1096–97, 981 F.Supp. 654, 667 (1997) ( “ Gulfstream ”); Aviall of Tex., Inc. v. United States, 18 CIT 727, 732–33, 861 F.Supp. 100, 105 (1994) (“ Aviall ”). The Federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ford Motor Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • January 6, 2016
    ..."require importers to file within one year of importation copies of applicable certificates of origin." Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 800 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1352 (C.I.T.2011). Ford argued that Customs improperly treated traditional claims filed under § 1520(d) differently than claims filed ......
  • Ford Motor Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • May 9, 2014
    ...be entered accordingly. 1. Familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case is presumed. See Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 35 CIT ––––, 800 F.Supp.2d 1349 (2011); Ford, 715 F.3d 906. 2. As this explanation contains detailed descriptions of many critical components of the ......
  • Ford Motor Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • May 3, 2013
    ...by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) of Ford's claims for post-entry duty refunds. See Ford Motor Co. v. United States (“ Ford III ”), 800 F.Supp.2d 1349 (C.I.T.2011). We agree with the Trade Court that 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) requires Ford to file the relevant certificates of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT