Opinion ID: 3167457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Customs’ Procedural Explanation

Text: Customs’ second argument in its remand explanation relates to procedural differences between traditional and reconciliation-based § 1520(d) claims. Customs argues that such procedural differences justify its inconsistent treatment of Ford’s claims, even if authority to waive certificates of origin stems exclusively from § 1520(d). Customs explains that, by virtue of being an “entry” under § 1401(s), reconciliation claims are safeguarded by statutory recordkeeping and bond requirements, whereas traditional § 1520(d) claims are not. Appellee’s Br. at 20– 23 (citing §§ 1401(a), 1484, 1508, and 1059). I disagree. NAFTA recordkeeping requirements apply regardless of the manner in which a § 1520(d) refund claim is filed. Section 1508(a) requires interested parties to “make, keep, and render for examination and inspection” all documents pertaining to importation. Even a refund claim that is not classified as an “entry” is governed by § 1508(a)’s recordkeeping requirements because all refund claims require “a written declaration that the good qualified [as an originating good] at the time of importation.” § 1520(d)(1). Section 1508(a)(3) applies to “activities [that] require the filing of a declaration, or entry, or both.” FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. US 17 (emphasis added). Section 1509’s inspection, examination, and audit procedures apply not only for the “purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any entry,” but also “for determining the liability of any person for . . . duties, fees and taxes which may be due.” See § 1509(a). Both traditional and reconciliation-based § 1520(d) claims require Customs to determine liability for duties. Customs further argues that a bond is required for an “entry,” whereas a bond is not required for a traditional § 1520(d) refund claim. Whether a bond is required for an “entry,” however, while not being required for a traditional § 1520(d) claim, is of little consequence. Unlike claims arising from reconciliation, traditional § 1520(d) refund claims do not rely on indeterminable information flagged at the time of importation. Rather, the entry is liquidated at importation as if no preferential treatment claim is being made. See § 1509(d). The importer thus pays all applicable liquidated duties and fees due at the time of importation, see J.A. 34, giving Customs an effective bond to guard against incorrect § 1520(d) refund claims. If Customs determines a § 1520(d) claim to be incorrect, Customs simply denies all or part of the refund and retains the duties paid at entry. Customs contends that it also needs a bond to guard against mistakes discovered after reliquidation, i.e., mistakes made after Customs has processed a § 1520(d) refund claim. If the importer is responsible for such mistakes, however, Customs has remedies available under § 1592. If Customs finds fraud or negligence, it has authority to administer severe penalties unless the NAFTA importer who discovers the incorrect claim “voluntarily and promptly makes a corrected declaration and pays any duties owing.” § 1592(c)(5). Customs can therefore guard against mistakes and abuse without a bond. Customs also argues that the technical manner in which it has defined waiver justifies treating waiver differently depending on whether an importer files a 18 FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. US refund claim traditionally or through reconciliation. For refund claims made through reconciliation, Customs waives “[p]resentation” of the certificate of origin “but the filer must retain this document and provide it [Customs] upon request.” J.A. 51. Under 19 C.F.R. § 181.22(d), on the other hand, Customs waives “possession” of the certificate of origin. Customs argues that because it grants “possession” waivers under § 181.22(d) but only “presentation” waivers through reconciliation, a waiver granted through reconciliation would not prevent Customs from later requesting an importer’s certificate of origin if dishonest behavior was suspected. Customs’ argument misses the point. Under the circumstances of this case, Customs could have granted Ford a “presentation” waiver for its traditional § 1520(d) claims. By the time Customs Headquarters was reviewing Ford’s traditional § 1520(d) claims, it was also reviewing denials of Ford’s claims for preferential treatment filed through reconciliation. Customs thus had already acknowledged statutory authority to waive “presentment” of certificates of origin, i.e., authority to waive less than that authorized by NAFTA Article 503. On the basis of such waiver authority, Customs granted Ford’s claims filed through reconciliation, while denying Ford’s traditional claims. There was no principled reason for doing so because the same statutory safeguards applied to both sets of Ford’s claims, and Ford had submitted all requisite certificates of origin, thus laying to rest any concerns about the authenticity of Ford’s claims. Customs mistakenly assumes that it could not have granted Ford a “presentation” waiver simply because Ford’s traditional claims were not formally filed through the reconciliation portal. Ford’s claims were filed electronically through the Electronic Protest Module of Customs’ Automated Commercial System (“ACS”). Because the Customs protest module could not accept paper documents such as copies of certificates of origin, Ford submitFORD MOTOR COMPANY v. US 19 ted refund claims without certificates, in accordance with interim reconciliation processes Ford had developed at other ports, and Ford offered to submit certificates of origin on CD-ROM. Ford’s claims thus reflected a claim filed under reconciliation in all substantive respects. The fact that Customs issued an informal, across-the-board “presentation” waiver for refund claims filed through reconciliation through notice in the Federal Register illustrates that it could have waived presentment here, particularly when it had no reason not to do so. “A fundamental norm of administrative procedure requires an agency to treat like cases alike.” Wester Energy, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 473 F.3d 1239, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 549 (2009) (“an agency must act consistently”).