Surety Says CAFC Should Toss Appeal If US Fails to Meet New Deadline for Opening Brief
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance filed a brief on Jan. 9 providing additional context for its opposition to the government's third motion for an extension of time to file its opening brief in a suit concerning unpaid duties against the surety despite the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the extension request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, Fed. Cir. # 25-2009).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Aegis said it opposes the motion, since the government has had "nearly seven months to write its brief," and that this delay "has prejudiced Aegis." The surety noted that the U.S. has lost "three similar cases" before the Court of International Trade, two of which were never appealed.
"If the Government fails to abide by its current deadline, Aegis asks that this Court dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute," Aegis said. In granting the third extension, which gives the U.S. until Jan. 26 to file its opening brief, the Federal Circuit said no additional motions for extension will be granted. "Aegis respectfully requests that the Court enforce that limit," the brief said.
The appeal is the first of its kind after the government lost three CIT cases in which it sought to get different surety companies to fork over unpaid duties on years-old entries. In Aegis' case, the U.S. is seeking unpaid duties on an entry that liquidated in 2009.
CIT Judge Jane Restani dismissed the case, becoming the third different trade court judge to do so (see 2506110038). Restani's decision adopted the views of both courts to have ruled on the issue. One said the statute of limitations had run out on a years-old entry, finding that liquidation runs from the date of the underlying entry's liquidation (see 2308220054), while the other said the statute of limitations had not run but CBP violated the implied statutory term of "reasonableness" in waiting too long to make the demand (see 2403180059).