Corporate Officer of Men’s Suit Importer Avoids Joint Payment of $2,392,307 in U.S. Customs Penalties

On July 30, 2013, in Slip. Op. 11-527, U.S. v. Trek Leather, Inc. and Harish Shadadpuri, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a U.S. Court of International Trade decision to impose penalties on the corporate officer of an “Importer of Record.”

“Trek Leather” (Trek), whose President and sole shareholder is Mr. Shadadpuri, was the Importer of Record for seventy-two (72) entries of men’s suits.  Mr. Shadadpuri is also a 40% shareholder to “Mercantile Electronics,” which was the consignee of these shipments.

Both Trek and Mercantile Electronics provided “assists” (in the form of fabric) to their suit manufacturers and failed to declare their value to US Customs.  Mr. Shadadpuri even admitted that he knew Trek (the Importer of Record) should have included the value of fabric assists in its duties but did not bother to do so.

 US Customs therefore brought a lawsuit claiming that under 19 USC §1592, both Trek and Mr. Shadadpuri, in his personal capacity, were liable for a penalty of $2,393,307 for fraudulently, knowingly, and intentionally understating the dutiable value of the imported men’s suits. 

Since Trek, a corporation, was the Importer of Record, Mr. Shadadpuri argued he could only be personally liable if the government established that he had pierced Trek’s “corporate veil” or established that he had either committed fraud, or aided and abetted Trek’s fraud, making him liable under 19 USC §1592.

 As Trek had conceded during the course of the litigation however, that its activity rose to a level of gross negligence, the government abandoned its fraud claim against Trek and instead proceeded alternatively on a claim of gross negligence.

 

Mr. Shadadpuri in his defense, argued that corporate officers of an Importer of Record are not directly liable for penalties under 19 USC §1592 – and the court agreed. 

 The CAFC’s 1999 decision in United States v. Hitachi America, Ltd., 172 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1999), held that because one cannot “aid and abet” negligent conduct, Mr. Shadadpuri could not be liable for Trek’s admitted negligence unless the government could prove he was acting as Trek’s alter ego rather than as an officer of the corporation acting in his capacity as such.

 

The CAFC, agreeing with Mr. Shadadpuri, stated that under the basic principles of corporate law, Mr. Shadadpuri could not be personally charged with a claim of negligence for the actions he took on behalf of the corporation.

In CAFC’s own words:

 
“[T]he government [US Customs] has asked us to adopt a broad legal principle that would expose all corporate officers and shareholders to personal liability for negligent acts they undertake on behalf of their corporation.  Absent an explicit statutory basis for doing so, we decline to believe Congress intended to supplant the common law so completely…”

 To read the full decision, click here.

 

Questions/comments?  Post below or email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com

 

 

Keep up with me:

On Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/FashionCompliance 

On YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/fashioncompliance

On Twitter @fashcompliance  https://twitter.com/fashcompliance

 

Prior Disclosure - To Make or Not to Make...

“US Customs is moving in the direction of aggressive penalties for non-compliance.  When US Customs conducts a compliance assessment, an importer must be 99% compliant (i.e., US Customs only allows a 1% error rate) in order to be considered compliant.” -- Assistant Field Director, US Customs Field Office - NYC

Every importer is aware – or should be aware – of the imposition of penalties for the failure to follow US Customs regulations.
 
Even if an importer believes it has been compliant, an internal audit or other self-assessment, can reveal areas where errors have been made, and some of these may have resulted in a loss of revenue to US Customs whether of liquidated, or unliquidated, entries.
 
So what is an importer to do?  Is it better to present the issue(s) to US Customs?  And if so, how does an importer go about doing that without opening up “Pandora's Box” in terms of auditing, or the delay of shipments, on the part of US Customs now that you have put yourself on its radar? Is it better to stay under the radar?
 
Clearly, if a post-entry amendment can be done to rectify the mishap, that is an easy way to resolve the issue. 
 
But what if the impact of a seemingly small discrepancy actually extends across years of entries?  Or perhaps, the discrepancy is narrow in terms of the volume of entries, but nonetheless resulted in a gross underdeclaration of duties?
 
Well, now there is a serious problem to deal with.  Unfortunately, the problem can be a much much (yes, I wrote the word twice) bigger one.  Let me explain why.
 
First of all, 19 USC §1592 sets forth the penalty assessments for failing to pay lawful duties.  The penalties differ based upon a range of culpability, ranging from fraud (the most serious), to gross negligence, to negligence (least serious offensive).
 
They are as follows:
 
Fraud violations = the domestic value of the merchandise.
 
Gross negligence violations =
(A) The lesser of
(i) four times (4x) the loss of lawful duties, taxes, and fees deprived the government, or,
(ii) the domestic value, or,
(B) 40% of the dutiable value, but in no case to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise, if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties.
 
Negligence violations =
(A) The lesser of:
(i)two times (2x) the loss of lawful duties, taxes, and fees deprived the government or,
(ii)the domestic value, or,

(B) 20% of the dutiable value, but in no case to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise, if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties.
 
Of course, there is always the option to try and mitigate the above duties, which would reduce the penalties as follows:
 
• Fraud – from a minimum of 5 times (5x) to a maximum of 8 times (8x) the total duty loss, or 50% to 80% of the dutiable value in non-revenue loss cases, but never to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise;

• Gross negligence – from a minimum of 2.5 times (2.5x) to a maximum of 4 times (4x) the total duty loss, or 25% to 40% of the dutiable value in non-revenue loss cases, but never to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise; or

• Negligence – from a minimum of 0.5 times (0.5x) to a maximum of 2 times (2x) the total duty loss or 5% to 20% of the dutiable value in non-revenue loss cases, but never to exceed the domestic value of the merchandise.
 
Contrast these penalties, including the possibility of mitigation, to that of when an importer does make a prior disclosure.

The penalty is zero (0) if the importations involve unliquidated (i.e., open) Customs entries and no fraud is involved.

If the entries are liquidated (i.e., closed or finalized) and no fraud is involved, the penalty is the interest on the loss of duties.

If a fraudulent violation is disclosed, the penalty is reduced from the regular assessment of the domestic value of the goods to 1 times (1x) the duty loss, or if the violation involves no duty loss, the penalty is reduced to 10% of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

Based on these figures, at face value, making a prior disclosure (codified in 19 USC §1592(c)(4)) would appear to be the prudent path to take. After all, by doing so, penalties are substantially reduced.

A prior disclosure must be submitted prior to the commencement of a “formal investigation” by US Customs. There are many rules regarding how to make the prior disclosure and what must be included within it in order to be considered valid, including, the circumstances of a violation of 19 USC §1592, and a tender of any duty loss.
 
US Customs regulations for Prior Disclosure are found in 19 CFR §162.74 and more information about it can be found in Customs informed compliance publication entitled “The ABCs of Prior Disclosure.” 
 
Questions/comments?  Email me at clark.deanna@gmail.com or post below.