from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos.
1:09-cv-00403-LMG, 1:10-cv-00125-LMG, 1:10-cv-00175-LMG,
1:10-cv-00343-LMG, Judge Leo M. Gordon.
Beverly A. Farrell, International Trade Field Office,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for
plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Amy M. Rubin;
Benjamin C. Mizer, Jeanne E. Davidson, Washington, DC;
Brandon Rogers, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United
States Customs and Border Protection, Indianapolis, IN; Paula
S. Smith, New York, NY.
Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by
Mark Frederick Horning.
Graham Gallagher, The Surety & Fidelity Association of
America, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae The Surety &
Fidelity Association of America.
Moore, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges.
government appeals from the United States Court of
International Trade's ("Trade Court") judgment
on the pleadings holding that the government is not entitled
to non-statutory equitable interest for unpaid antidumping
duties for imported goods. United States v. Am. Home
Assur. Co., 100 F.Supp.3d 1364, 1373 (Ct. Int'l
Trade 2015) ("AHAC II"). American Home
Assurance Company ("AHAC") cross-appeals the Trade
Court's decision to award the government interest on the
unpaid duties under 19 U.S.C. §§ 580 and 1505(d).
Id. at 1371. We affirm the Trade Court decision on
appeal stems from four collection actions in which the
government sought to recover unpaid antidumping duties from
AHAC, a surety. AHAC secured three different importers'
importation of preserved mushrooms and crawfish tail meat
from China by issuing numerous single transaction and
continuous entry bonds in 2001 and 2002. The issued bonds
obligated the importers and AHAC to pay, up to the face
amounts of the bonds, "any duty, tax or charge and
compliance with law or regulations" resulting from
covered activities. Customs liquidated the entries secured by
the bonds and assessed antidumping duties on the merchandise.
Each importer failed to pay the duties owed. The parties do
not dispute that AHAC is liable for the principal amounts of
antidumping duties owed on the bonds.
liquidation, Customs started charging statutory
post-liquidation interest on the unpaid duties of two of the
collections that did not exceed the face amount of the bonds
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d) ("§ 1505(d)
interest"). From 2003 to 2009, Customs issued multiple
demands notifying AHAC of the government's intent to seek
§ 1505(d) interest. AHAC protested the government
demands and Customs denied the protest. AHAC could have
challenged Customs' denial at the Trade Court under 28
U.S.C. § 1581(a), but elected not to do so. In 2009, the
government commenced four suits at the Trade Court for the
collection of unpaid duties and interest, which the Trade
Court consolidated. After discovery, the parties cross-moved
for summary judgment. Relevant to this appeal, the parties
disputed the application of equitable prejudgment interest,
§ 1505(d) interest, and 6% statutory prejudgment
interest under 19 U.S.C. § 580 ("§ 580
Trade Court granted in part and denied in part both the
government's and AHAC's motions. It ordered AHAC to
pay § 1505(d) interest up to the face amounts of the
bonds. It held that § 1505(d) interest involves
"charges or exactions of whatever character" under
19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(3) and that the statute does not
contain an exception for charges or exactions arising after
liquidation. It held that the bonds statutorily and
contractually serve to secure the payment of duties and any
interest- they do not distinguish between pre- and
post-liquidation interest. It held that because the §
1505(d) interest determination is "final and
conclusive" under § 1514(a) and AHAC failed to
contest its denied protest, AHAC was precluded from asserting
any defenses regarding its liability for § 1505(d)
Trade Court also held AHAC liable for § 580 interest,
which is 6% statutory prejudgment interest. The Trade Court
declined to award equitable prejudgment interest because the
6% rate of the § 580 interest "far exceeds the
applicable rates at which the Government would receive
equitable interest" and awarding equitable prejudgment
interest in these circumstances would over-compensate the
government. The government appeals the Trade Court's
denial of non-statutory equitable interest, and AHAC
cross-appeals the Trade Court's award of § 580 and
§ 1505(d) interest to the government. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
review the Trade Court's grant or denial of summary
judgment for correctness as a matter of law and we decide de
novo "the proper interpretation of the governing statute
and regulations as well as whether genuine issues of material
fact exist." United States v. Am. Home Assur.
Co., 789 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
("AHAC I"). We review the Trade
Court's determination not to award equitable prejudgment