Slip Op. 12-134 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge 

Court No. 06-00434 

OPINION and ORDER 

[Defendant liable for unpaid duties.] 

 Dated: November 7, 2012 

Steven M. Mager and Shelley D. Weger, Trial Attorneys, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for 

Plaintiff United States. With them on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant 

Director. Of counsel was Andrew Kosegi, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, of Indianapolis, IN. 

John M. Peterson and Richard F. O’Neill, Neville Peterson LLP, of New York, 

NY, argued for Defendant C.H. Robinson Company. 

 

Gordon, Judge: This opinion follows a bench trial. Plaintiff United States (the 

“Government”) brought this action pursuant to Section 553 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1553 (2006)1

, and 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c), to recover certain duties, 

taxes, and fees from Defendant C.H. Robinson Company (“C.H. Robinson”). The court 

has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1582(3) (2006). For the reasons set forth 

                                                            

1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of 

Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2006 edition.

UNITED STATES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 2 

below, the court adjudges C.H. Robinson liable for the duties, taxes, and fees 

demanded by the United States. 

I. Background 

This action involves the Government’s claim that C.H. Robinson, a bonded 

carrier, owes duties, taxes, and fees accruing to the United States for three entries 

(“subject entries”) of wearing apparel (“subject merchandise”) from the People’s 

Republic of China. The subject entries were made as transportation and exportation 

entries, covering merchandise destined for Mexico after passing through the United 

States from the Port of Los Angeles, California to the Port of Laredo, Texas. 

The vast majority of merchandise brought into the United States is entered by 

means of consumption entries by an importer of record. A consumption entry requires 

that merchandise entered into the commerce of the United States meet several 

statutory and regulatory requirements, including the payment of duties owing upon the 

entered merchandise, unless the merchandise is subject to duty-free treatment. See 

generally 19 U.S.C. § 1505. 

As an exception to this general rule, Congress established that merchandise may 

be entered into the United States for the sole purpose of transporting such merchandise 

to a foreign port of destination. In particular, “[a]ny merchandise . . . shown by the 

manifest, bill of lading, shipping receipt, or other document [such as a Customs Form 

7512] to be destined to a foreign country, may be entered for transportation in bond 

through the United States by a bonded carrier without appraisement or the payment of 

duties and exported under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

prescribe.” 19 U.S.C. § 1553(a). A transportation and exportation entry (“T&E entry”) is 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 3 

the type of entry that is used when merchandise is transiting the United States for 

eventual export from the United States. It is only when merchandise is being 

transported to a foreign destination and exported that duties are not owed. 

Based on its clear statutory authority, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(“CBP”) developed a broad regulatory scheme in which transportation and exportation 

entries would operate. See 19 U.S.C. § 1553(a); see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 18.20-18.24 

(2001). 2 CBP’s regulatory scheme for T&E entries is designed to ensure that 

merchandise destined to a foreign port of entry is, in fact, exported. This scheme 

provides a multi-layered approach to overseeing such entries, including safeguards 

against non-compliance. Among these safeguards is the provision found at 19 C.F.R. 

§ 18.8(c), which requires that a “carrier shall pay any internal-revenue taxes, duties, or 

other taxes accruing to the United States on the missing merchandise, together with all 

costs, charges, and expenses caused by the failure to make the required transportation, 

report, and delivery.” 

The regulatory scheme also sets forth the timing of certain events regarding the 

transit of in-bond merchandise. For example, bonded merchandise destined for export 

from the United States and transported by land is required to be delivered to CBP at the 

port of exportation within 30 days after the date of receipt by the forwarding carrier at 

the port of origin. See 19 C.F.R. § 18.2(c)(2). As a safeguard, if this requirement is not 

met, the regulation provides that failure to deliver the merchandise within the 30-day 

                                                            

2 Further citations to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the relevant provisions of 

2001 edition.
Court No. 06-00434 Page 4 

period constitutes an irregular delivery and the initial bonded carrier is subject to 

applicable civil penalties. Id. (citing 19 CFR § 18.8). 

Additionally, CBP’s regulations require that “[p]romptly, but no more than 2 

working days, after arrival of any portion of the in-bond shipment at the port of 

exportation, the delivering carrier shall surrender the in-bond manifest [CF 7512] to the 

port director as notice of arrival of the merchandise.” 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(a). This 

regulation also states that“[f]ailure to surrender the in-bond manifest or report the arrival 

of bonded merchandise within the prescribed period shall constitute an irregular delivery 

and the initial bonded carrier shall be subject to applicable penalties (see § 18.8).” Id. 

(parenthetical in original). 

Submission of a CF 7512 provides CBP with notice that the carrier has complied 

with the requirement of 19 C.F.R. § 18.2(c)(2) to deliver the merchandise to the port of 

exportation within 30 days of receipt. It also commences the 20-day period for the 

carrier to notify CBP that the in-bond merchandise has not been entered. See 

19 C.F.R. § 4.37(b). However, if the carrier chooses to enter, rather than export, the inbond merchandise, the carrier must make that entry (for consumption, for additional 

movement by another carrier, or for entry into warehouse) within 20 days after arrival at 

the port of destination. Id. 

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(b), “[t]he port director shall require only such 

supervision of the lading for exportation of merchandise covered by an entry or 

withdrawal for exportation or for transportation and exportation as is reasonably 

necessary to satisfy him that the merchandise has been laden on the exporting 

conveyance.” 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(b). In late 2001 and early 2002, the time of the subject 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 5 

entries, CBP used a self-regulating process at the Port of Laredo in which CBP did not 

require (1) a carrier to report separately its arrival at the port of destination and the 

carrier’s exportation of the merchandise, and (2) the supervised exportation of each 

T&E entry. Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. In Limine, App. 29-30 (Dickinson Dec.), Jan. 8, 

2010, ECF No. 71. Instead, at that time, CBP gave exporting carriers the benefit of the 

doubt that merchandise subject to a T&E entry was exported after having merely 

received notice of the merchandise’s arrival at the port, unless such notice was called 

into question. 

CBP is authorized to verify the presumption of exportation it granted an exporting 

carrier of a T&E entry. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(c), 

“[w]henever the circumstances warrant, and occasionally in any event, port directors 

shall request the Office of Enforcement to check export entries . . . against the records 

of the exporting carriers. Such check or verification shall include an examination of the 

carrier’s records of claims and settlement of export freight charges and any other 

records which may relate to the transaction. The exporting carrier shall maintain these

records for 5 years from the date of exportation of the merchandise.” 19 C.F.R. 

§ 18.7(c)(emphasis added). A bonded carrier’s failure to ensure exportation or other 

lawful disposition of T&E merchandise exposes the carrier to liabilities for any nondelivery at the port of exportation. See id. at §§ 18.7(c) and 18.8. Any non-delivery of 

T&E merchandise is “presumed to have occurred while the merchandise was in the 

possession of carrier, unless conclusive evidence to the contrary is produced.” 

19 C.F.R. § 18.8(a); see also Assessment of Liquidated Damages Under Carrier’s 

Bonds, 47 Fed. Reg. 2,086-01, 2,087 (Dep’t of Treasury Jan. 14, 1982) (final rule). 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 6 

In addition to liability for payment of liquidated damages on the bond, the bonded 

carrier’s liability covers “any internal-revenue taxes, duties, or other taxes accruing to 

the United States on the missing merchandise, together with all costs, charges, and 

expenses caused by the failure to make the required transportation, report, and 

delivery.” 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c). 

Here, CBP conducted an audit under 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(c) to verify whether 

C.H. Robinson as the bonded carrier of the subject entries exported the subject 

merchandise. CBP concluded that C.H. Robinson could neither show that the subject 

merchandise was nor otherwise account for the merchandise’s whereabouts. CBP 

therefore presumed that the merchandise remained in the United States and 

determined that non-delivery of T&E merchandise had occurred for which 

C.H. Robinson was responsible. Accordingly, CBP made a demand on C.H. Robinson, 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1553 and 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c), for payment of $106,407.86, plus 

interest, for duties owed on the subject entries (“CBP’s duty demand”). Joint Ex. 23. 

CBP’s duty demand explained that C.H. Robinson owed duties on the subject entries 

because “C.H. Robinson failed to insure that the goods were exported to Mexico” and, 

“[c]onsequently, the quota/visa-restricted merchandise was diverted into the commerce 

of the United States, resulting in the loss of duties owed to the Government.” Id. CBP’s 

duty demand advised C.H. Robinson that “this demand may be protestable pursuant to 

19 U.S.C. § 1514.” Id. C.H. Robinson neither protested the demand nor paid the duties 

demanded. This action for collection of the unpaid duties ensued. 

Prior to trial C.H. Robinson moved to dismiss this case as a matter of law, 

denying legal liability for any duties, taxes, or fees owed on the subject entries. Def.’s 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 7 

Mot. to Dismiss, Mar. 30, 2007, ECF No. 19. In support of its motion to dismiss, 

C.H. Robinson argued that its responsibility for the subject entries was fully discharged 

when the subject merchandise was delivered to the Port of Laredo, as evidenced by the 

CF 7512s stamped upon arrival at that port. Id. at 7. C.H. Robinson contended that 

“any event that occurred subsequent [to delivery in Laredo] is not actionable against the 

carrier.” Id. In denying C.H. Robinson’s motion the court ruled that as the bonded 

carrier of the subject entries, C.H. Robinson fulfilled its obligations under 19 C.F.R 

§ 18.8 by providing acceptable proof of proper delivery of the subject merchandise at 

the Port of Laredo, i.e., by presenting date-stamped receipt copies of the subject 

CF 7512s. See Order Denying Mot. to Dismiss at 3, Nov. 20, 2007, ECF No. 32. 

However, the court further held that C.H. Robinson not only had to certify proper 

delivery, but was also responsible under the regulatory scheme to account for “missing 

merchandise.” Id. 

The court subsequently clarified that the Government has “the burden of 

persuasion to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject 

merchandise is ‘missing’ within the meaning of the regulation, or more simply that the 

merchandise was not exported as required.” Order Denying Def.’s Mot. in Limine at 2 

(citing Tech Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2008), 

Jan. 14, 2010, ECF No. 75. Although there is a regulatory presumption that a datestamped CF 7512 showing receipt of the in-bond manifest is acceptable proof of proper 

delivery, C.H. Robinson, as the bonded carrier, also had a duty to account for missing 

merchandise if audited under the verification procedures of 19 C.F.R. § 18.7. Given 

these considerations, the court noted that the Government could not open its case in 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 8 

chief “by simply resting with no proffer other than bare reliance on a regulatory 

requirement that Defendant account for missing merchandise.” Id. at 3. Rather, the 

Government would have to rebut the presumption of proper delivery by proffering “as 

part of its case in chief evidence of the verification procedures undertaken pursuant to 

[the regulatory scheme] and their results that raised suspicions about the exportation of 

the merchandise, leading [the court] to conclude that [the merchandise] was not 

exported.” Id. Depending on the efficacy of the Government’s opening case, 

C.H. Robinson, in turn, would have to come forward with its own evidence and 

explanations to account for the potentially missing subject merchandise. A bench trial 

followed to determine whether the Government could establish by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the subject merchandise was missing and therefore never exported. 

In an action tried upon the facts without a jury, “the court must find the facts 

specially and state its conclusions of law separately.” USCIT R. 52(a)(1); see also 

28 U.S.C. § 2645(a)(1). Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

the court adjudges C.H. Robinson liable for duties, taxes, and fees on the subject 

merchandise in the amount of $106,407.86, plus interest. 

II. Discussion 

A. Findings of Fact 

In late December 2001, Trans-Union Group Inc./Intercambio Comercial Ekim 

S.A. (“TUG”), the importer of record, entered the subject merchandise under cover of 

T&E entry numbers 609 203 744, 609 203 873, and 609 203 862 at the Port of Los 

Angeles. Joint Exs. 4-6. C.H. Robinson was designated by TUG as the bonded carrier 

for the subject entries. Tr. 457:24-459:8 (Munoz direct); Joint Ex. 3; see also Joint Exs. 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 9 

4-6. At TUG’s request, C.H. Robinson was to transport the subject merchandise from 

the Port of Los Angeles for delivery to Intercambio Comercial Ekim SA/L.E. Forwarding 

& Freight Broker in Laredo, Texas3 using Mario’s Transports Inc. (“Mario’s Transports”). 

Tr. 459:9-24; 471:18-22; 479:9-480:2 (Munoz direct); Joint Exs. 3-4, 7-11. Shortly after 

entry, the subject merchandise exited the Port of Los Angeles for Laredo and then its 

ultimate destination of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Pretrial Order, Schedule C (Uncontested 

Facts) ¶¶ 3, 11, and 19; Joint Exs. 4-6.

TUG employed Mario Pena, Inc. (”Pena”), a licensed U.S. customs broker, to 

receive the subject merchandise in Laredo for exportation to Mexico. See Tr. 485:14-18 

(Munoz cross); Joint Ex. 4. Pena received the T&E documents - the CF 7512s - for the 

subject entries, and on January 2 and 4, 2002, using an unmonitored stamp machine in 

the lobby of CBP’s export lot at the Port of Laredo, obtained a date stamp showing 

receipt of each of the three subject CF 7512s covering the subject entries. Tr. 273:5-18 

(Mario Pena, Jr. direct); Joint Exs. 4-6. Pena’s official log book shows a record of 

receipt for the CF 7512s for the subject entries, but is blank for a corresponding date of 

exportation for each entry. Joint Ex. 13; see Tr. 271:23-272:6 (Mario Pena, Jr. direct). 

Pena never brought the subject merchandise to the CBP export lot in Laredo, nor did 

Pena ever see, or take possession or delivery of the subject merchandise. Tr. 273:5-14 

(Mario Pena, Jr. direct). Morever, CBP neither physically inspected nor took possession 

                                                            

3

 No entity by the name of Intercambio Comercial Ekim SA/ L.E. Forwarding & Freight 

Broker was authorized to receive bonded cargo during the time in question. Tr. 409:18-

412:3 (Ingalls direct). 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 10 

of the subject merchandise at the Port of Laredo. Tr. 137:21-138:8 (Rodriguez direct); 

Joint Exs. 4-6. 

In March 2002, Officer O’Ruill David McCanlas (“Officer McCanlas”) of CBP”s 

Office of Investigations, Fraud and Commercial Crimes Unit commenced an audit of 

C.H. Robinson, as the bonded carrier responsible for the subject entries, to ensure 

compliance with CBP’s procedures for T&E entries. Tr. 25:10-24; 26:9-27:10; 41:21-

42:22 (McCanlas direct) and 51:17-20 (McCanlas cross). In response to Officer 

McCanlas’ request for proof that the subject entries had been exported to Mexico, 

C.H. Robinson produced a date-stamped receipt copy of the in-bond manifest – the 

CF 7512 – for each of the subject entries. Joint Exs. 4-6. C.H. Robinson also obtained 

from TUG and submitted to CBP three documents purporting to be Mexican import 

documents, known as “pedimentos” (“the C.H. Robinson pedimentos” or “subject 

pedimentos”), as proof of exportation of the subject entries. Tr. 42:23-43:13 (McCanlas 

direct) and 526:19-21 (Anderson re-direct); Pl.’s Exs. 9-11. 

After receiving the subject pedimentos, Officer McCanlas contacted Jesus 

Alberto Fernandez Wilburn (“Fernandez Wilburn”), Port Director at the Colombia 

Solidarity Bridge for Mexican Customs, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, which shared operations 

with the Port of Nuevo Laredo, requesting that Mexican Customs verify the authenticity 

of the three subject pedimentos. Tr. 44:20-45:9 (McCanlas direct); Pl.’s Ex. 15. 

A search of Mexican Customs’ electronic database revealed that the unique numbers 

on each of the subject pedimentos did not match the numbers for any pedimento in 

that database, nor was there any evidence of the existence of the subject pedimentos. 

Tr. 328:10-329:10 (Fernandez Wilburn direct). Moreover, the four digit broker code for 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 11 

the customs broker listed on the subject pedimentos did not match the name of the 

customs broker associated with that code. Tr. 329:20-331:2 (Fernandez Wilburn 

direct). Lastly, the inspection stamps on each of the subject pedimentos indicated a 

road-check inspection in the interior of Mexico that pre-dated the purported date of 

entry of the subject merchandise into Mexico, Tr. 332:6-22 (Fernandez Wilburn direct), 

and pre-dated the date stamp signifying payment of Mexican import duties. Tr. 335:6-

14 (Fernandez Wilburn direct). 

The court heard testimony from Rudolfo Torres Herrera (“Torres Herrera”), who 

served in various positions for Mexican Customs prior to his current appointment as the 

Assistant Commissioner for post imports. He is well versed in the Mexican importation 

system, including the use of pedimentos, and was designated as an expert at trial. Tr. 

164:7-22 (Torres Herrera direct) and 206:20-207:14 (Torres Herrera direct). He testified 

that on valid pedimentos inspection stamps must always post-date bank stamps 

because Mexican customs duties must be deposited with a bank prior to entry of 

merchandise into Mexico. Tr. 184:14-21 (Torres Herrera direct). 

Torres Herrrera also testified that, in September 2009, in response to another 

request from CBP to verify the validity of the subject pedimentos, he performed a 

detailed analysis of the information contained in those pedimentos. Pl.’s Exs. 41-43. 

A search of Mexican Customs’ electronic database for information on the unique 

pedimento numbers corresponding to each of the subject pedimentos revealed no 

information regarding the numbers corresponding to these three pedimentos. 

Tr. 179:13-180:2 (Torres Herrera direct). A further search of the Mexican Customs’ 

electronic database for the name and broker license number of the Mexican customs 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 12 

broker listed on each of the pedimentos revealed that there was no broker in that 

database matching the name and broker license number set forth on the subject 

pedimentos. Tr. 181:16-182:2 (Torres Herrera direct). That search, however, did reveal 

that the customs broker license number provided on the subject pedimentos belonged 

to a customs broker other than the broker listed on those pedimentos. Tr. 182:2-6 

(Torres Herrera direct). Moreover, the search revealed that the Mexican Customs’ 

electronic database had no record of a relationship between the importing company 

listed on the subject pedimentos and either the named customs broker or the customs 

broker whose license number appeared on those pedimentos. Tr. 182:20-183:5 (Torres 

Herrera direct). The results of these searches confirmed the results of CBP’s March 

2002 inquiry. 

The Torres Herrera investigation also showed that the tax identification number – 

a unique number assigned to all persons or entities doing business in Mexico – listed on 

the subject pedimentos for the Mexican customs broker was not in the Mexican 

electronic taxation database. Tr. 181:17-182:1; 183:6-184:5-7 (Torres Herrera direct). 

He thus concluded that the listed tax identification number was not valid. Id. The 

Torres Herrera investigation further revealed that the population registry number – a 

unique 18-digit number assigned to all Mexican nationals upon birth – listed for the 

Mexican customs broker on the subject pedimentos did not contain the required number 

of digits for population registry numbers and was identical to the tax identification 

number listed on the subject pedimentos. Tr. 183:7-184:7 (Torres Herrera direct). The 

investigation also demonstrated that the bank listed on the subject pedimentos as 

having received payment of the duties owed on the entries of the subject merchandise 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 13 

did not engage in any transaction with the importing company listed on the subject 

pedimentos. Tr. 184:8-185:11 (Torres Herrera direct). Finally, Mexican Customs’ 

electronic database did not contain any record of import transactions involving the 

importing company listed on the subject pedimentos during the period 2001-2002. 

Tr. 185:12-21 (Torres Herrera direct). 

Torres Herrera also testified about the likelihood that cargo accompanied by the 

subject pedimentos could have passed legally through Mexican Customs into Mexico. 

According to Torres Herrera, all information listed on a pedimento is included in a bar 

code appearing at the center of the document, Tr. 169:18-170:8 (Torres Herrera direct), 

and all cargo entering Mexico must pass through a series of checkpoints where 

Mexican Customs visually examines each pedimento and the bar code is scanned for 

verification against Mexican Customs’ electronic database. Tr. 190:16-195:13 (Torres 

Herrera direct). He indicated that there are three check points in the enclosed Mexican 

Customs’ compound in the Port of Nuevo Laredo through which all truck cargo must 

pass upon crossing the U.S./Mexico border. Id. At the first inspection booth, a Mexican 

Customs official scans the bar code. If the pedimento is not in Mexican Customs’ 

electronic database, Mexican Customs would seize the subject merchandise. 

Tr. 191:13-24 (Torres Herrera direct). At the second inspection booth, which is 

operated by a private company, the bar code is scanned again to verify the results of 

the first scan. Tr. 191:25-193:25 (Torres Herrera direct). If the pedimento is not in 

Mexican Customs’ electronic database, the subject merchandise would be seized. Id. 

At the third check point, the pedimento is visually inspected for a final time before cargo 

is permitted to leave the compound. Tr. 194:2-19 (Torres Herrera direct). Any 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 14 

discrepancy or irregularity found in the pedimento during the three stage check-point 

process would lead to a physical inspection and/or seizure of the cargo, and all such 

inspections or seizures would be registered in Mexican Customs’ electronic database. 

Tr. 191:13-194:14 (Torres Herrera direct); Tr. 341:12-16 (Fernandez Wilburn direct). In 

addition to the three check points at the Mexican Customs’ compound in Nuevo Laredo, 

cargo traveling by road to the interior of Mexico is subject to a fourth check point located 

20 kilometers from the U.S./Mexico border. At this fourth check point, operated by 

Mexican military, federal, and/or state police, each pedimento is examined and the bar 

code is again scanned. Tr. 194:12-19 (Torres Herrera direct). If any discrepancy is 

identified, the subject merchandise would be seized. Tr. 191:13-194:19 (Torres Herrera 

direct). 

Torres Herrera testified that, in his experience, illegal entry (smuggling) of 

merchandise into Mexico is most often accomplished by using pedimentos that, unlike 

the subject pedimentos, are valid in all respects except for the listed country of origin. 

He testified that in those cases, but for the country of origin, the information contained 

on the face of the pedimento would match that found in the Mexican Customs’ 

electronic database so as to minimize the risk of suspicion during the importation checkpoint process. Tr. 195:17-196:17 (Torres Herrera direct). Because the subject 

pedimentos contained numerous discrepancies that were unverifiable by a search of 

official Mexican electronic databases and because the subject pedimentos contained 

information whose falsity could have been ascertained by a visual inspection of a 

trained Mexican Customs official, Torres Herrera concluded that, in his expert opinion, 

the subject pedimentos were not valid Mexican import documents, Tr. 179:3-11 (Torres 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 15 

Herrera direct), and that any cargo accompanied by these pedimentos could not have 

passed into the territory of Mexico undetected by Mexican Customs. Tr. 190:18-195:13 

(Torres Herrera direct). Accordingly, in his expert opinion, the merchandise purported 

to have been imported into Mexico using the subject pedimentos never entered Mexico. 

Tr. 189:24-190:15 (Torres Herrera direct). 

Pursuant to the procedures in place in 2002, Mexican Customs would have 

seized cargo whose pedimentos did not appear in Mexican Customs’ electronic 

database. Tr. 341:12-16 (Fernandez Wilburn direct). While there is no evidence of the 

subject pedimentos in Mexican Customs’ electronic customs database, Tr. 179:18-

180:2 (Torres Herrera direct) and 328:10-329:10 (Fernandez Wilburn direct), there is 

also no record of a seizure of the subject merchandise by Mexican Customs. See Pl.’s 

Ex. 15; Tr. 58:14-59:3 (McCanlas cross) and 327:8-18 (Fernandez Wilburn direct). 

In response to the Government’s case in chief, C.H. Robinson relied on the three 

date-stamped CF 7512s for the subject entries; the subject pedimentos; the driver hand 

tags and freight bills for transport of the subject merchandise; and Pena’s official log 

book as evidence regarding the final disposition of the subject entries. Pl.’s Exs. 19 and 

22. While C.H. Robinson demonstrated proof of delivery of the subject merchandise at 

the Port of Laredo, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c), by submitting the three datestamped CF 7512s, see Order Denying Mot. to Dismiss at 3, no information contained 

on the face of the three CF 7512s provides any indication of the exportation or nonexportation of the subject merchandise after its presumed arrival at the Port of Laredo, 

see Joint Exs. 4-6; Tr. 32:19-33:9 (McCanlas direct) and 87:9-89:20 (Lopez direct). The 

same can be said for the driver hang tags and the freight bills for the transport of the 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 16 

subject merchandise, Pl.’s Ex. 19; Tr. 90:2-92:23 (Lopez direct), and the official Pena 

log book, Joint Ex. 13; Tr. 268:12-22; 272:14-24 (Mario Pena, Jr. direct). 

Although C.H. Robinson made efforts to provide additional evidence of the 

disposition of the subject merchandise after its purported arrival at the Port of Laredo, 

those efforts proved to no avail. In early November 2004, Gordon Anderson 

(“Anderson”), Vice President of C.H. Robinson’s brokerage operations during the time in 

question, sent an email message to Donald Munoz (“Munoz”), the account manager at 

C.H. Robinson responsible for the subject entries. Joint. Ex. 18. In this email message, 

Anderson asked Munoz to locate any records demonstrating that the subject 

merchandise had been exported to Mexico. Id.; Tr. 460:10-461:3 (Munoz direct). 

C.H. Robinson’s search for proof of export included attempts to locate “Customs 

documents, financial receipts, Mexican carrier and or broker proof of export, paperwork 

showing arrival into the plant in [M]exico, etc.[,] ... documents from the truckers used[,] 

[including] drivers log [and] other documentation showing delivery was made ... [and] 

any sort of financial trail, to include P.O.’s and method of payment and confirmation of 

funds received by [the] customer for [the] transaction[,] [as well as] warehouse ledger 

info, [and] proof of delivery to receiving party ... [and any information from the] party in 

Mexico [who] was responsible for clearing Mexican Customs.” Joint Ex. 18. 

C.H. Robinson’s internal efforts failed to locate any such records or any other evidence 

that the subject merchandise had left the territory of the United States. Id.; Tr. 492:6-

493:22 (Munoz re-direct) and 526:19-21 (Anderson re-direct).

C.H. Robinson, through Munoz, contacted TUG to obtain additional proof of 

exportation in 2004. See Joint Ex. 18. However, TUG never provided any proof (other 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 17 

than the subject pedimentos at the time of the original transaction) to C.H. Robinson 

that the subject merchandise was exported to Mexico. Joint Ex. 18; see also 

Tr. 491:17-20; 493:12-22 (Munoz re-direct). C.H. Robinson was also unable to obtain a 

financial trail for the subject merchandise, such as purchase orders, methods of 

payment, confirmation of a funds transfer by TUG, information from a warehouse ledger 

showing that the subject merchandise had shipped, documentation from the Mexican 

customs broker, proof of delivery to the receiving party in Mexico or similar 

documentation, showing that the subject merchandise was received in their warehouse, 

nor was C.H. Robinson able to locate a record of any taxes or fees paid by TUG to its 

Mexican customs broker for services of clearing Mexican Customs. Tr. 492:11-493:11 

(Munoz re-direct). C.H. Robinson also failed to present any evidence, including a 

driver’s log from Mario’s Transports, to demonstrate delivery of the subject merchandise 

in Mexico. Lastly, C.H. Robinson presented no evidence demonstrating that, pursuant 

to Customs’ regulations, another party relieved it of its responsibility to export the 

subject merchandise. C.H. Robinson never replaced or cancelled the subject entries 

with immediate exportation or consumption entries. Pretrial Order, Schedule C, 

Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 8, 16, & 24.

The court notes that, throughout the five-year history of this litigation up through 

the time of trial, C.H. Robinson had proferred the subject pedimentos (obtained from 

TUG) as proof of exportation. At trial, however, C.H. Robinson conceded that the 

subject pedimentos were not genuine documents and could not be verified in Mexican 

Customs’ electronic database. Tr. 18:18-19:24 (Peterson opening statement); see also 

Def.’s Proposed Concls. of L. ¶ 20 (“C.H. Robinson does not deny that the pedimentos 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 18 

were not genuine.”) and ¶ 35 (“[T]he invalid pedimentos which C.H. Robinson presented 

to Customs did not constitute acceptable proof of exportation . . . .”). At that point, 

C.H. Robinson sought to create an inference that the subject merchandise was 

smuggled into Mexico. Tr. 19:6-16 (Peterson opening statement). Despite its efforts, 

C.H. Robinson presented no evidence (direct or circumstantial) that would lead to the 

inference that the subject merchandise was smuggled into Mexico. To the contrary, the 

subject pedimentos, in the expert opinion of Torres Herrera, were more likely than not 

evidence of diversion of the subject merchandise into the commerce of the United 

States rather than evidence of smuggling into Mexico. Tr. 201:19-24 (Torres Herrera 

direct). Critically, the disposition of the subject merchandise after its purported arrival at 

the Port of Laredo remains unknown to C.H. Robinson, and C.H. Robinson presented 

no evidence nor anyone with personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the subject 

merchandise. 

There is no direct evidence as to the whereabouts of the subject merchandise. 

However, the Government presented documentary evidence and the credible testimony 

of several lay witnesses, including Officer McCanlas and Fernandez Wilburn, along with 

the credible testimony of its expert, Torres Herrera, that allows the court to draw a 

reasonable, if not strong, inference that the subject pedimentos were not valid Mexican 

import documents, a fact ultimately conceded by C.H. Robinson. The record before the 

court and the credible testimony of these witnesses, in particular that of Torres Herrera, 

further allows the inference that the subject merchandise could not have been imported 

into Mexico using the subject pedimentos. Those pedimentos would not have been 

validated by an inspection of Mexican Customs’ electronic database and would not have 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 19 

passed visual scrutiny by Mexican Customs officials. Therefore, the court finds that the 

subject merchandise is missing. 

Additionally, the documentation that C.H. Robinson provided during the audit 

process to CBP, as well as at trial, did not establish (a) exportation out of the United 

States, (b) entry into the commerce of the United States along with payment of duties, 

(c) warehousing, or (d) transfer to another carrier for exportation of the subject 

merchandise. The record before the court and, in particular, the credible testimony of 

Defendant’s two witnesses, Anderson and Munoz, further demonstrates 

C.H. Robinson’s inability to proffer, no less obtain evidence (other than the datestamped CF 7512s and the subject false pedimentos) that accounts for the subject 

merchandise. Therefore, the court finds C.H. Robinson was unable to account for that 

merchandise in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(a). 

B. Conclusions of Law 

As explained above, merchandise seeking to pass through U.S. ports for export 

without appraisement or payment of duty is entered at the port of arrival under cover of 

a T&E entry. See 19 C.F.R. § 18.20(a). The statutory and regulatory framework 

imposes various responsibilities and deadlines for the handling of a T&E entry. Among 

them, T&E merchandise must be transported from the port of arrival by a bonded 

carrier, 19 U.S.C. § 1553(a); 19 C.F.R. § 18.20(a), and must be delivered to CBP at the 

port of destination within 30 days of receipt by the bonded carrier at the port of arrival (if 

transported on land). 19 C.F.R. § 18.2(c)(2). Within no more than two working days 

after arrival of any portion of the merchandise at the port of destination, the bonded 

carrier must notify CBP of such arrival by surrendering the in-bond manifest (CF 7512). 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 20 

19 C.F.R. §§ 18.2(d) and 18.7(a). The final disposition of the merchandise – either 

exportation or official entry into U.S. commerce or warehouse – must then be effected 

within 20 days of the notice of arrival. See 19 C.F.R. § 4.37(b). A bonded carrier’s 

failure to comply with any of these procedures exposes the carrier to the liabilities set 

forth in 19 C.F.R. § 18.8. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 18.2(c)(2), 18.2(d), 18.7(a), and 18.8(a); 

see also id. at § 4.37(b). 

Additionally, a bonded carrier responsible for a T&E entry is subject to postexportation audit by CBP “[w]henever the circumstances warrant, and occasionally in 

any event.” 19 C.F.R. § 18.7(c). Post-exportation audits are designed to “check export 

entries and withdrawals against the records of the exporting carriers” and “shall include 

an examination of the carrier’s records of claims and settlement of export freight 

charges and any other records which may relate to the transaction.” Id. 

When CBP determines that merchandise covered by a T&E entry is missing or 

unaccounted for, the non-delivery is ‘presumed to have occurred while in the carrier’s 

possession, and therefore, the carrier is treated by [CBP] as being responsible for that 

loss [such that CBP] will collect from the carrier duty on the missing merchandise.” 

Assessment of Liquidated Damages Under Carrier’s Bonds, 47 Fed. Reg. 2,087. 

A bonded carrier’s liabilities for any missing T&E merchandise include liquidated 

damages on the bond, 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(b), as well as “any internal-revenue taxes, 

duties, or other taxes accruing to the United States on the missing merchandise.” Id. at 

§ 18.8(c). When audited pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 18.7, a bonded carrier’s failure to 

account for the exportation of merchandise covered by a T&E entry is a legally sufficient 

basis for the imposition of duties under 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c). See 19 C.F.R. §§ 18.7(c) 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 21 

and 18.8(c); Order Denying Mot. to Dismiss at 3. The Government may collect duties 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d), or alternatively under 19 U.S.C. § 1553 and 19 C.F.R. 

§ 18.8(c). Order Denying Mot. to Dismiss at 2-3. 

The allocation of legal responsibility for the subject entries in this action is 

governed by the regulatory framework applicable to a T&E entry. See Joint Exs. 4-6; 

see also Joint Ex. 13. Against this framework, each subject date-stamped CF 7512 

showing receipt of the in-bond manifest enjoys a presumption that it is proof of proper 

delivery of the subject merchandise by C.H. Robinson. Order Denying Def.’s Mot. in 

Limine at 3. However, C.H. Robinson’s obligations under 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c) go 

beyond the certification of proper delivery of the merchandise covered by the subject 

entries to include a responsibility to account for missing merchandise. Order Denying 

Mot. to Dismiss at 3. Despite C.H. Robinson’s arguments to the contrary, there is no 

statute or regulation that imposes a burden on the Government to search for or 

establish the location of missing merchandise. 

As the bonded carrier responsible for the subject entries, C.H. Robinson, has a duty to 

ensure that the subject merchandise was timely exported out of the United States or 

lawfully entered into U.S. commerce or warehouse. See Order Denying Def.’s Mot. to 

Dismiss; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1553(a); 19 C.F.R. §§ 18.7(c) (providing for audit of 

“exporting carriers” (emphasis added)) and 18.8(a)). Had C.H. Robinson wanted to 

expose itself only to liability for transporting the subject merchandise from one port to 

another, without needing to ensure the proper exportation of the merchandise, it could 

have done so by using an immediate transportation without appraisement entry. See 

19 U.S.C. § 1552; 19 C.F.R. §§ 18.11-18.12.    Before delivering the merchandise to 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 22 

another carrier for exportation, C.H. Robinson could then have ensured that the new 

carrier filed an Entry for Exportation, see 19 C.F.R. §18.25, making the new carrier 

liable in the event that the new carrier failed to export the merchandise.    Alternatively, 

C.H. Robinson could have had the merchandise entered into a warehouse or for

consumption. See 19 C.F.R. § 18.23(b). C.H. Robinson chose none of these options.  

Rather, by permitting itself to remain the carrier of the subject merchandise entered 

under a T&E entry, it would seem obvious that C.H. Robinson was responsible for 

ensuring the exportation of the subject merchandise. It is equally obvious that by failing 

to do so C.H. Robinson made itself liable for any violations that may have occurred 

relating to the exportation of that merchandise. 

To recover taxes, duties, and fees accruing to the United States, the Government 

bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject 

merchandise is “missing.” Order Denying Def.’s Mot. in Limine. Proof by a 

preponderance of the evidence requires the court, as the trier of fact, “to believe that the 

existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 

539, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970) (Harlan, J., 

concurring)). 

In this action the Government has established that the subject merchandise is 

missing, and C.H. Robinson, in turn, has failed to account for that missing subject 

merchandise. The court concludes on the record before it that it is more probable than 

not that the subject merchandise was not exported, as required by statute and 

regulation. Consequently, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1553 and 19 C.F.R. § 18.8(c), 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 23 

C.H. Robinson is liable for “any internal-revenue taxes, duties, or other taxes accruing 

to the United States” on the missing subject merchandise in the amount of $106,407.86. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Government has established that C.H. Robinson 

did not export or otherwise account for the subject merchandise and that the 

Government is therefore entitled to a judgment for unpaid duties on the subject entries 

in the amount of $106.407.86, plus interest. In early March 2004, C.H. Robinson paid 

CBP $57,212 as settlement of the liquidated damages claims related to the subject 

entries. Comp. ¶ 15. Subsequently, the Government admitted that the maximum 

amount of liquidated damages owed by C.H. Robinson was capped at the amount of the 

bond on the subject entries, i.e., $25,000. Id. at ¶ 18; see also C.H. Robinson Int’l v. 

United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 651, 660 (2005) Consequently, in seeking its requested 

relief, the Government acknowledges that a judgment in its favor should be offset by 

any overpayment in liquidated damages by C.H. Robinson on those entries. Comp. at 

Prayer for Relief. 

Additionally, the Government seeks pre-judgment interest on the unpaid duties. 

The award of pre-judgment interest is within the sound discretion of the court based on 

considerations of equity and fairness. See United States v. Imperial Food Imports, 834 

F.2d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing United States v. Goodman, 6 CIT 132, 140-41, 

572 F. Supp. 1284, 1290 (1983)). The purpose behind pre-judgment interest is to make 

the Government whole by reimbursing it for what in effect amounts to an interest-free 

loan to Defendant. Id. Pre-judgment interest shall run from the date of Customs’ final 

demand for payment, September 21, 2006, to the date of judgment, see United States 
Court No. 06-00434 Page 24 

v. Yuchius Morality Co., 26 CIT 1224, 1240-41 (2002), at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2644 and in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6621, see United States v. Golden Gate 

Petroleum Co., 30 CIT 174, 182-83 (2006) (citing Goodman, 6 CIT at 140, 572 F. Supp. 

at 1290). In this action, there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the 

Government, and therefore, equity favors awarding the Government pre-judgment 

interest to compensate the Government for the loss of use of the unpaid duties. Finally, 

the Government is awarded post-judgment interest based on the same considerations 

of equity and fairness and shall be calculated at a rate in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961. See Golden Gate Petroleum, 30 CIT at 183 n.9 (citing Goodman, 6 CIT at 140-

41, 572 F. Supp. at 1290). Accordingly, the parties are hereby 

ORDERED to file, on or before November 20, 2012, a joint proposed judgment in 

conformity with this opinion taking into account any overpayment in liquidated damages 

by C.H. Robinson on the subject entries; and it is further 

ORDERED that if the parties are unable to reach agreement on a joint proposed 

judgment, each party shall file its own proposed judgment on or before November 20, 

2012. 

 /s/ Leo M. Gordon 

 Judge Leo M. Gordon 

Dated: November 7, 2012 

 New York, New York