Opinion ID: 211089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assists

Text: The Court of International Trade found that Ford violated § 1485 because it failed to 'at once' notify Customs that the entry values relating to certain entries were inaccurate because of tooling assists provided for certain vehicles and vehicle components, and that its failure was negligent. Id. at 1209-10. The trial court made no express ruling that the Reconciliation Agreement did not apply to assists, but its discussion of the issue implies that conclusion. Ford, in its initial brief, makes no argument relating directly to the question of reporting the assists under § 1485. In its reply brief, however, it argues that the Reconciliation Agreement did apply to assists, and that its claimed compliance with the Reconciliation Agreement therefore constituted compliance with § 1485 for assists as well as for direct payments. Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court. See, e.g., Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (a party waives arguments based on what [does not] appear[] in its brief); see also United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 830-31 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating the same proposition and citing numerous cases). Ford therefore waived this argument by failing to raise it in its opening brief. Ford's opening brief contains no argument asserting that the Reconciliation Agreement is relevant to its compliance with § 1485. In fact, it is devoid of any argument relating to the application of § 1485 to assists, except for its contention that there was a complete failure of proof on that issue. Even its reply brief raises the issue in cursory fashion, limiting its discussion to a single three-sentence 05-1584 13 footnote. It is unfair to consider an argument to which the government has been given no opportunity to respond. We therefore affirm the trial court's conclusion that Ford's failure to report assists at once negligently violated § 1485.