United States v. Trek Leather, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1DissentDyk, Circuit Judge
The majority holds that only an importer of record or agent authorized in writing — as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1484 of the customs statutes — may be liable for negligence as a “person” under § 1592(a)(1)(A). Absent piercing of the corporate veil, it holds that corporate officers (agents of the corporation) like Shadadpuri are not liable for negligently submitting false customs forms.
In my view, the majority’s interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and its legislative history. I respectfully dissent.
I
The majority suggests that § 1592 is designed solely to impose…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Clark v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Clinton v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. IslipUnited States Court of International Trade · 1998
- United States v. Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant/cross-Appellant, and Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Appendagez, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.