## Facts

- Hera Shipping, Inc. operated as an international courier importing goods into the United States through the Port of Miami, including liquor.
- Hera maintained a $50,000 continuous entry bond.
- Customs concluded Hera’s bond was inadequate based on evidence that Hera was regularly importing liquor without filing entries and without paying duties and taxes, creating substantial potential liabilities.
- On May 5, 1986, the Miami District Director required Hera to increase its continuous bond from $50,000 to $1,300,000.
- Hera asserted Customs failed to provide 30 days’ notice and increased the bond without an administrative hearing to establish “reasonable cause.”
- Hera filed suit in the Court of International Trade challenging the bond increase on regulatory and Fifth Amendment due process grounds.
- The government moved for summary judgment, asserting Customs had authority to determine bond sufficiency and require an increased bond without a prior hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether Customs had statutory and regulatory authority to determine the sufficiency of Hera’s continuous entry bond and require an increase from $50,000 to $1,300,000 based on perceived revenue risk.
2. Whether the Fifth Amendment and/or Customs regulations required Customs to provide (a) 30 days’ advance notice and (b) a pre-increase administrative hearing before implementing the increased bond.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the government and upheld Customs’ increased continuous bond requirement.
- The court held Customs could determine bond sufficiency and require an increased bond to protect the revenue in light of Hera’s potential liabilities.
- The court rejected the claim that due process required a pre-increase administrative hearing.
- The court rejected Hera’s notice-based challenge, concluding the asserted notice requirement did not bar the bond sufficiency action and, in any event, did not establish a constitutional due process violation given the available post-deprivation remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Customs has broad discretion under the customs laws and implementing regulations to require and adjust continuous entry bonds to secure the payment of duties, taxes, and related obligations.
- An importer is not constitutionally entitled to a pre-deprivation administrative hearing before Customs increases a continuous bond based on revenue-protection concerns.
- Procedural due process is satisfied where post-deprivation judicial review is available and the government’s interest in protecting revenue outweighs the importer’s private commercial interest in maintaining a lower bond.
- Alleged noncompliance with a notice provision does not automatically amount to a Fifth Amendment due process violation when the regulatory framework and post-deprivation review provide an adequate procedure overall.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade upheld Customs’ authority to sharply increase an importer’s continuous entry bond based on perceived duty and tax exposure and held that Customs was not required to provide a pre-increase hearing, with post-deprivation judicial review providing sufficient process in this context.


Hera Shipping, Inc. v. Carnes, 10 Ct. Int’l Trade 493 (1986)