United States v. Sentry Insurance

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1073, 980 F. Supp. 481, 21 C.I.T. 1073, 1997 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 133
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedSeptember 17, 1997
DocketCourt No. 94-03-00173
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1073 (United States v. Sentry Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Sentry Insurance, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1073, 980 F. Supp. 481, 21 C.I.T. 1073, 1997 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 133 (cit 1997).

Opinion

Opinion

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge:

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, claiming Sentry Insurance, A Mutual Company (“Sentry”), is liable to the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) for unpaid amounts pursuant to a Vessel, Vehicle, or Aircraft Bond (Single Entry) ("Bond ”) related to foreign repairs made on an American vessel that Trinidad Corporation (“Trinidad”), as principal, and Sentry, as surety, executed and delivered to Customs. Customs contends it is due a total of $24,818.21 in duties plus interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees from Sentry under the Bond. Sentry cross-moves for summary judgment.

Background

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1466 (1988), a U.S.-registered vessel engaged in trade is liable for duty in the amount of 50 percent ad valorem of the cost of repairs made in a foreign country on that vessel upon the vessel’s first arrival in any port of the United States. In anticipation of such duties, on January 30,1985, agents of both Trinidad and Sentry executed and delivered to Customs the Bond related to the entry of the Admiralty Bay to a U.S. port. Under the terms of the Bond, Trinidad and Sentry are jointly and severally liable for any duties, charges, exactions, penalties or other sums found legally due the United States. See Bond, Def.’s App., Ex. A (Jan. 30, 1985).

On February 1,1995, Trinidad entered the Admiralty Bay, a U.S.-registered vessel engaged in trade that had been subject to foreign repairs effectuated in Japan, at the port of Valdez, Alaska. Soon after the entry of the vessel, Trinidad filed its initial application for determination of duties, estimating it owed $976,080.00 in duties for vessel repairs, with the Liquidation Branch of the U.S. Customs Service in San Francisco, [1074]*1074California. See Letter from B.A. McKenzie & Co., Inc. to U.S. Customs Service, Def.’s App., Ex. C (June 24, 1985). Customs, however, did not demand deposit of estimated duties from Trinidad or inform Trinidad or Sentry of any liquidation at that time.

On December 24,1987, Apex Oil Company and fifty-one of its subsidiaries, including Trinidad, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On April 1,1988, two years and nine months after Trinidad’s initial application for determination of duties, Customs purported to liquidate the vessel repair entry at $997,053.50. Thereafter, on June 7,1988, pursuantto 19 C.F.R. § 113.38(c)(4) (1988), Customs notified Sentry that: (1) liquidation of the entry had occurred; (2) $1,005,258.53, which comprised the original duty amount in addition to the accumulated interest at the time, was owed by Trinidad; (3) Trinidad was in bankruptcy; and (4) Sentry should direct any payment or further correspondence to the Director of the U.S. Customs National Finance Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, within 120 days. See Letter from U.S. Customs Service to Sentry Ins. Co., Def.’s App., Ex. E.

On July 16,1988, Customs filed a claim against Trinidad in the bankruptcy proceedings (Claim No. 235), including a claim for $997,053.50 and “0 interest” relating to the alleged liquidated duty amount of the entry. Opinion & Order, In re Apex Oil Co., Def.’s App., Ex. D, at 3 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. March 26, 1992). On August 2, 1988, Mathiasen’s Tanker Industries, Inc. (“MTI”), debtor-in-possession, prepared and mailed a check for $997,053.50 in payment of the portion of Claim No. 235 relating to the foreign vessel repair entry. Customs negotiated MTI’s check on August 8,1988. Customs claimed that, after negotiation of the check from MTI, abalance of $24,818.21 remained in duties from the accumulated interest on the original duty amount since, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 24.3a(c)(4) (1988), a late payment is first applied to the interest charge on the delinquent amount, and then to the delinquent principal amount.

On September 1, 1988, pursuant to MTI’s payment, Customs filed a Notice of Satisfaction of Claim with the Bankruptcy Court, stating that its claim against Trinidad had been fully satisfied by MTI. See Notice of Satisfaction of Claim, Pl.’s App., Ex. 7. Subsequently, within the time specified by Customs for protest, Sentry responded to the National Finance Center, objecting to the payment of interest and pointing out that the entry was liquidated after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings by the principal on the bond and, therefore, Customs should either waive the interest or collect it through the bankruptcy court, where the government’s rights are superior to those of any private party. See Letter from Attorneys for Sentry Ins. Co. to U.S. Customs Service, National Finance Center, Def.’s App., Ex. F. (Sept. 2, 1988).

Trinidad, on August 11, 1989, filed an Objection to Claim No. 235, seeking disallowance of the claim on the basis that the claim was paid in full and payment had been acknowledged. The Bankruptcy Court re[1075]*1075sponded by entering a Default Order Sustaining Objection to Claim No. 235 on September 29, 1989, and concluding that Customs violated the automatic stay effected under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (1988) once an entity files under Chapter 11. See In re Apex Oil Co., 122 B.R. 559, 567 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1990). The Bankruptcy Court, however, decided to refer the matter to the U.S. Court of International Trade. See id. at 566. On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s holding but determined that the matter should not be referred to the U.S. Court of International Trade because it was in the interest of justice to keep the matter in bankruptcy court. See In re Apex Oil Co., 131 B.R. 712, 715-16 (E.D. Mo. 1991). Finally, the Bankruptcy Court entered its decision confirming the satisfaction and disallowance of the claim at issue against Trinidad, deeming the claim fully satisfied by MTI’s payment. See Opinion & Order, In re Apex Oil, Def.’s App., Ex. D.

Although the Bankruptcy Court held the debt satisfied as to Trinidad, Customs has continued to demand from Sentry the balance allegedly due from the Admiral Bay’s vessel repair entry under the Bond. The amount claimed by Customs had reached $40,228.69 as of May 28,1993. See Letter from U.S. Customs Service to Sentry Ins. Co., Pl.’s App., Ex. 6. On March 21, 1994, Customs filed suit with this Court against Sentry.

Discussion

On a motion for summary judgment, it is the function of the Court to determine whether there remain any genuine issues of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Once the Court determines that no genuine issues of material fact exist, summary judgment is properly granted when the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Mignus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Washington International Insurance
177 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Court of International Trade, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1073, 980 F. Supp. 481, 21 C.I.T. 1073, 1997 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sentry-insurance-cit-1997.