NA TIO NA L F ISHE RI ES IN STIT UT E,

IN C. , ET AL . ,Pla int if

fs , v. UN ITED STA TES BU RE AUOF CU STOM S AN D B OR

DE R P RO TEC TIO N ,

De fe nd ant. Slip Op. 09-104 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 05- 00683

OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [Denying de fenda

nt’s motion seeking clar ification and modifica tion of court’s or der of

rema nd] Dated: Septembe r 25, 2009 Ste pto e &J oh ns on LLP

( Eric C. Emerson , Gregory S. M cCue , and Mi c ha e l A . P as s ) for pla int if fs

. Ton yW est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Barbara S. W illiams , Attorney

in Charg e, International Trade Field Of fice , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates De partment of Justice ( Stephen C. Tosini ); Chi S. Choy , Customs and B order Protection, United States Depa rtment of Ho me land

Se c ur ity , o f c ouns e l, f

or de fe nd ant. Stanceu, Judge : Defe ndant United States moves for clar ification of the c ourt’s orde r (“O pinion and Orde r”) in National Fisheries Institute, Inc. v . United States , 3 3 CI T _ _, Slip Op. 09-89 (Aug . 25, 2009) (“ National Fisheries ”). D ef.’ s Mot. for Clarification 1 (“De f.’s Mot.”). Plaintiffs oppose def endant’ s motion on various gr ounds. Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’ s Mot. for Clarification. The court c oncludes that de fenda nt’s motion, although sty

led as a motion forCourt No. 05- 00683 P age 2

In National

Fisheries Institute, Inc. v . United States , the cour t ordere d that 1 Customs , in acc ordanc e with this Opinion and Order , shall acc omplish each individual bond redete rmination under this Opinion and Orde r for the purpose of allowing a plaintiff who is a principal on a

bond to replac e that bond with a superse ding bond at a limit of li ability that was not dete rmined ac cordingto the enhanc ed bondingrequire ment, reg ardle ss of whethe r such bond is a c urre nt bond or a bond a

pplying to a

previous time per iod. Nat’l Fisheries Institute, Inc. v. U nited States , 33 CI T __, __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 61 (Aug . 25, 2009). clar ification, see ks a modification of the Opinion and Orde r. F or the re asons stated he rein, the court c oncludes that the modification defenda nt seeks is unnec essar

y and unwa

rra nted. Def endant dire cts its moti on to the court’s ha ving or dere d United States Customs and Bo rd er P ro t ec t i o n(“ C u s t o m s ” o r t h e “ Age n cy ”) , “duri n g th e r em an d p er i o d o r duri n g a
re a so na ble tim e the re a ft e r, ” to c anc e l e a c h o f p la int if fs ’ b on ds that ha

ve a lia bil ity lim it deter mined acc ordingto the enhanc ed bondingrequire ment that the cour t has held to be unlawful. Nat’l Fisheries , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 61. The “ rema nd period” is a period 1 of six ty day s from August 25, 2009, the date of the Opinion and Orde r, duringwhich re mand per iod Custom s shall effe ct, in acc ordanc e with this Opinion and Or der, a

n individual redete rmination of the limit of liabili ty on eac h individual continuous entry bond at issue in this action without application of the enhanc ed bondingrequire ment unless it chooses to canc el all liability on a bond outrig ht, as provided in this Opinion and Orde r. Id. Be cause the cour

t directe d Customs to file the re sults of its redeterminations upon re mand within six ty

day s of the date of the Opinion and O rder , the re mand re deter minations are due on October 26, 2009. In it s mo tio n, de fe nd ant r e qu e sts that th e c ourt “ make c le ar t

hat U nit e d St a te s Cu sto ms and B order

Protection (‘CB P’) nee d not canc el any exis ting c ontinuous entry bonds until after the re is a fi na l and c on c lus ive jud g me nt i n th is c a se .” De f. ’s Mo t. 1 . D e fe nd ant e xpre sse s aCourt No. 05- 00683 P age 3

conce rn that “c ance llation of the exist ing bonds be fore issuance of any final and c onclusive judgme nt in this matter may rende r moot our rig ht to appeal” and that “a ny action that the Gover nment takes to pre serve its rights on appe al might be considere d to violate the Court’s

rema nd order .” Id. at 5. De fe nd ant r e qu e sts sp e c if ic a lly that th e c ourt

“ su bs tit ute the wo rd s, ‘duringa re asonable time therea fter’ ” with the wor ds “‘within 60 day s of any final and conclusive judg ment in this m atter.’ ” Id. at 7. The la ng uag e propose d by

defe ndant would make a substantive cha

ng e in the Opinion and Or der. The ref ore, de fenda

nt’s motion mus t be considere d as a motion for modifica tion of the Opinion and Orde r rather than a motion for clar ification. Be cause the Opinion and Or der pr ovided that bond ca ncellations must be ef

fec ted during th e r em an d

p er i o d “o r duri n g a reasonable time there after ,” ther e is no nee d for a clar ification of the Opinion and Or der to c ommunicate the e ssential point that Cust oms may canc el, but is not require d to canc el, any

bond pr ior

to filing its re mand re deter minations on October 26, 2009. Nat’l Fisheries , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 61 (e mphasis added) . Nothing in the O pinion and Or der pr eclude s Custom s from informingthe cour t, in the remand r edete rminations, of a commitment on the part of the A g ency to canc el a pa

rticular bond or

bonds at a spec ific time. Whe n th e c ourt

vie ws the Ag e nc y ’s re mand re de te rm inatio ns , th e c ourt wi ll b e in a

po sit ion to consider a

ny statement that Customs chooses to make in the re mand re deter minations on when Customs intends to canc el any of plaintiffs’ bonds that may rema in in effe ct as of the date of filing of the re mand re deter

minations. W hether

or not Customs provides such a statement or , a lte rn a tiv e ly , in dic ate s th at it ha s n o inte nti on

to c a nc e l, p ri or

to a fi na l and c on c lus ive jud g me nt, any bonds that remain in ef

fec t, the court will have the opportunity to take the Ag ency ’s re mandCourt No. 05- 00683 P age 4

rede terminations into consideration in fa shioning a judgme nt or otherwise resolvingissues

re ma ini ngin t

his c a se . F or

the se re a so ns , th e c ourt

c on sid e rs it p re matur e to a dd re ss at th is t ime the question of whe ther a ny bonds that Custom s does not canc el duringthe re mand per iod, or commits to cance l within a brief a nd specific time period followingthe close of the re mand period, will be re quired to be c ance led prior to a f inal and conc lusive judgme nt in this case . The court will consider

this question promptl y

upon rec eiving the Ag ency ’s re mand re deter minations. Additionally , beca

use Customs was not directed to c ance l any bond duringthe re mand per iod, the issue def

endant r aises as to possible mootness of its rig ht to appeal is also pre mature. The subjec t matter of the c ourt’s re mand af fec ts unresolved issues that should be addre ssed expeditiousl y . Acc ording ly , it is i mportant that Customs comply with the October

26, 20 09 du e date . In it s mo tio n, de fe nd ant d oe s n ot i nd ic a te that Cu sto ms w ill be un a ble to c omp ly wi th t his du e date . T he c ourt

do e s n ot i nte nd

to a pp ro ve an e xten sio n o f t

he du e date a

bs e nt a sh ow ingof

du e dil ig e nc e and

c omp e lli ngc ir c ums tanc e s. The c ourt believe s it appropriate to redire ct def endant’ s attention to severa l matters discussed in the Opinion and Or der. A s the court state d, “plaintiffs have bee n subjected to bond sufficie ncy

deter minations that they

have de monstrated in this lit iga tion to be contrar

y to law” and that “c annot be a llowed to stand.” Nat’l Fisheries , 33 CI T at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 56. The

c ourt a lso c on c lud e d th at “ [t]he se tti nga sid e of the un lawf

ul b on d s uf

fi c ie nc y de te rm inatio ns , standing alone, is a hollow a ct that provides plaintiffs no r emedy absent a ction taken on the underlying c ontinuous entry bonds.” Id. The c ourt observe d that “[t] hroug hout this l itigation, Cus tom s st e a df

a stl y ha s r e fu se d to pr ov ide any re lie f a s to the se pr e vio us bo nd s, e ve n th ou g h it has had multiple opportunities to do so during the course of this liti g ation and eve n though it nowCourt No. 05- 00683 P age 5

has discontinued the e nhance d bonding r equire ment.” Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 56-57. The court obser

ved, fur ther, that “ [t ]he continued ref usal of Customs to address the proble m of the pr e vio us bo nd s h a s r e su lte d in ine qu ita ble tr e a tme nt o f l on g -t ime imp or te rs , s uc h a s p la int if

fs , relative to new importers who wer e neve r subject to the unlaw ful enha nced bonding require ment.” Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 58. The intention of Customs reg ardingthe leng th of time that it int ends to allow the c onsequenc es of its past unlawf ul bond sufficienc y deter minations to remain in effe ct in the form of un-ca ncele d bonds is an important consideration in t his c a se . T he c ourt

the re fo re mus t vi e w the tim e fr ame fo r c anc e llatio n o f e xistin g bo nd s a s a fac tor in fashioninga judg ment or other r emedy

. The c ourt will deny

defe ndant’s motion for the r easons state d above. I n addition, the

c ourt ha s n ot ye t r

ule d o n p la int if

fs ’ m oti on

fo r a pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio n o r h a d th e op po rt

un ity to consider whether

the re mand that it has order ed in this case “ may obviate the ne ed for

a perma nent injunction in the future by resolvingexpeditious ly

the re maining issues in this case .” Id. at __, Slip Op. 09-89, at 53. Thus, the pende ncy of plaintiffs’ motion for a perma nent injunction is an independent re ason supportingthe denial of defe ndant’s motion to modify the Opinion and Orde r. F or the re a so ns dis c us se d h e re in, and in c on sid e ra

tio n o f d e fe nd a

nt’ s mo tio n, pla int if

fs ’ reply , and all proc eeding s here in, it is here by OR DE RE D that Def

endant’ s Motion for Clarification be, and her eby is, DENI ED.
/s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e Dated: September 25, 2009 New Y ork, Ne w York