U.S. v. Imperial Food Imports, 87-1330

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BISSELL; BISSELL
Citation834 F.2d 1013
Parties, 6 Fed. Cir. (T) 37 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IMPERIAL FOOD IMPORTS, Defendant, and American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 87-1330,87-1330
Decision Date08 December 1987

Harvey Barrison, Russotti & Barrison, New York City argued for defendant-appellant American Motorists Ins. Co. With him on the brief was Mariann Sullivan.

Michael P. Maxwell, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellee U.S. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BISSELL, Circuit Judge.

BISSELL, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by defendant American Motorists Insurance Company (Motorists) of a summary judgment awarded plaintiff United States of America by the United States Court of International Trade. United States v. Imperial Food Imports, 660 F.Supp. 958 (1987). We affirm.


The importation of foodstuffs is regulated by the United States Customs Service (Customs) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and requires the filing of a bond before release of the shipment by Customs. When importing foodstuffs the importer or its broker must notify the FDA, which may issue a "may proceed notice." However, the FDA may determine that the merchandise should not be permitted to enter the country without proof of compliance with 21 U.S.C. Sec. 381(a)(3) (1982), which concerns adulterated food. In such a case, the FDA will issue a Notice of Sampling, 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1.90, and often a Notice of Detention and Hearing, 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1.94. If the importer does not respond to the Notice of Detention within ten days, a Notice of Refusal of Admission is issued, 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1.94. The importer then has ninety days to either export or destroy the foodstuffs. If the importer has not acted after ninety days, Customs issues a Notice of Redelivery, 19 C.F.R. Sec. 141.111. If the importer fails to comply by redelivering the goods, the importer breaches its bond with Customs.

This action arises from the importation of nine shipments of foodstuffs in 1984, by Imperial Food Imports (Imperial) and its customhouse broker, Western Overseas Corporation (Western). Motorists acted as surety for the bonds provided to Customs. When Imperial imported these shipments, the FDA issued a Notice of Sampling and, subsequently, a Notice of Detention and Hearing for each. Motorists provided Western with blank bonds to be used as needed. For four of the shipments, Imperial and Western filed bonds with Customs before the issuance of the Notice of Detention.

For the other five shipments, the bonds were filed after the issuance of the Notice of Detention. Imperial filed both entry notices and the bonds with Customs, which released the shipments. Imperial did not abide by the Notices of Detention or the subsequent Notices of Redelivery. According to Customs regulations, Imperial had breached the bonds and was subject to liquidated damages. Motorists was not notified of any of these Notices

Imperial defaulted on the bonds leaving Motorists liable as its surety. Motorists did not pay the liquidated damages. One year after the final demand for payment the United States brought a civil action in the United States Court of International Trade for the damages plus interest from the date of final notice to Imperial. The United States and Motorists both moved for summary judgment, which was granted to the United States. Motorists has appealed.


1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a dispute existed as to a material fact.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest.


Motorists contends that it was improper to grant summary judgment because there was an issue of material fact. Motorists relies on the Restatement of Security Sec. 124(1) (1941), which states:

Where before the surety has undertaken his obligation the creditor knows facts unknown to the surety that materially increase the risk beyond that which the creditor has reason to believe the surety intends to assume, and the creditor also has reason to believe that these facts are unknown to the surety and has a reasonable opportunity to communicate them to the surety, failure of the creditor to notify the surety of such facts is a defense to the surety.

The issue of material fact that Motorists alleges to exist is whether the government had a duty to disclose, through the Customs Service, that Notices of Detention had been issued by the FDA before accepting bonds for the shipments. We reject this argument.

The parties filed stipulations of fact in this case before the grant of summary judgment. As to those facts, it is too late at this time for Motorists to argue that a dispute exists. There was one fact, however, to which the parties did not stipulate. This concerns an admission made by the government in its reply brief below, that in five of the subject shipments, Customs received the bonds after Notices of Detention were issued. Motorists maintains that granting summary judgment was inappropriate in this case in light of the questions of fact this admission may raise, and consequently, that we should reverse and remand for a full trial on the merits. Nevertheless, even if we construe this admission in a light most favorable to Motorists, it still does not justify a reversal and remand.

According to the leading case construing Sec. 124, a surety must meet three conditions to set forth a defense that would discharge its obligation:

Section 124, subdivision (1), of the Restatement of Security prescribes three conditions prerequisite to imposition of a duty on a creditor to disclose facts it knows about the debtor to the surety. Those conditions are: (a) "the creditor has reason to believe" that those facts materially increase the risk "beyond that which the surety intends to assume"; (b) the creditor "has reason to believe that the facts are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • December 17, 2015
    ...is fully compensated for the time period during which it is deprived of the use of its funds. See United States v. Imperial Food Imps., 834 F.2d 1013, 1016 (Fed.Cir.1987). Because the Government will be fully compensated by the statutory prejudgment interest it will receive by means of § 58......
  • United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Slip Op. 15–120.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 28, 2015
    ...the trial judge." Id. at 1328 (citing United States v. Reul, 959 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1992) ; United States v. Imperial Food Imps., 834 F.2d 1013, 1016 (Fed.Cir.1987) ).Because the posture of this case is not "in the absence of a statute," the court holds that plaintiff is not entitled ......
  • United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • June 17, 2015
    ...its equitable 789 F.3d 1329powers may in its sound discretion award prejudgment interest.”); United States v. Imperial Food Imports, 834 F.2d 1013, 1016 (Fed.Cir.1987) (“[I]n cases such as this in which no statute specifically authorizes an award of prejudgment interest, such an award lies ......
  • United States v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., Slip Op. 17–136
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 5, 2017
    ...whether to award equitable pre-judgment interest, the court is to exercise its discretion, see United States v. Imperial Food Imps., 834 F.2d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1987), guided "by traditional judge-made principles." City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 194, 11......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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