## Facts

- National Fisheries Institute, Inc. and related shrimp importers imported frozen warm-water shrimp subject to antidumping duty orders.
- CBP historically set continuous entry bond amounts under a 1991 bond directive using generally uniform methodologies tied to estimated duties, taxes, and fees.
- In 2004, citing revenue-collection concerns for antidumping duties, CBP imposed an “enhanced bonding requirement” (EBR) targeting shrimp importers, increasing required continuous bond liability amounts far above typical levels.
- CBP’s EBR formula sought to secure potential future antidumping duty liability at amounts substantially above the cash deposits required at entry.
- Plaintiffs asserted the EBR forced them to post significant collateral or curtail imports and challenged the EBR as an unlawful departure from established bonding practice.
- Plaintiffs brought an as-applied challenge and moved for judgment on the agency record under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

## Issues

1. Whether CBP’s general bond authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a) permitted an EBR that substantially increased bond requirements for shrimp importers to secure potential antidumping duty increases beyond required cash deposits.
2. Whether the EBR, as applied to plaintiffs, was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA due to selective targeting and an over-securing bond formula.

## Decision

- The Court of International Trade granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record in relevant part.
- The court held the EBR arbitrary and capricious in imposing greatly increased bond requirements only on shrimp importers.
- The court held the EBR unreasonable in applying a formula that secured potential antidumping duties at a substantial amount over the required cash deposit.
- The court set aside the EBR as applied to plaintiffs and remanded to CBP to redetermine plaintiffs’ continuous bond limits of liability consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Agency action affecting bond requirements is reviewable under the APA and must reflect reasoned decision-making supported by a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
- CBP’s authority to require bonds “necessary for the protection of the revenue” under 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a) is discretionary but bounded; it may not be exercised in a manner that is arbitrary or disproportionate to demonstrated revenue risk.
- Selective imposition of materially higher bonding requirements on a single product category requires an evidence-based explanation and cannot rest on generalized assumptions or unsupported extrapolation.
- A bond formula that over-secures potential liability relative to required cash deposits may be unreasonable absent a demonstrated need and a tailored link between importer-specific risk and bond amount.
- A significant departure from established bonding practice requires an adequate explanation and a reasoned justification for both the change and the chosen method.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade invalidated CBP’s enhanced shrimp bonding requirement as applied to the plaintiff importers because CBP selectively imposed dramatically higher bond amounts and used an over-securing formula without adequate evidentiary support or reasoned explanation, and it remanded for a lawful redetermination of bond liability limits.


Nat’l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 637 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009)