## Facts

- Importers entered merchandise subject to antidumping duty orders (including crawfish tail meat and preserved mushrooms) and, in some instances, posted bonds in lieu of cash deposits pending rate determination.
- American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) issued customs bonds as surety, obligating it (up to the bond amounts) for “any duty, tax or charge” arising from the covered entries.
- After the Department of Commerce set antidumping duty rates, U.S. Customs and Border Protection liquidated the entries and assessed antidumping duties.
- Importers failed to pay the assessed duties; Customs demanded payment from AHAC under the bonds for principal and interest.
- The government sought interest under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d) (post-liquidation interest on unpaid duties) and 19 U.S.C. § 580 (interest in suits on duty-payment bonds).
- The Court of International Trade ruled, among other things, that § 580 interest did not apply to unpaid antidumping duties secured by the bonds.
- AHAC appealed adverse rulings; the United States cross-appealed the denial of § 580 interest.

## Issues

1. Whether 19 U.S.C. § 580’s allowance of interest in suits “for the recovery of duties” on “all bonds” applies when the duties are antidumping duties secured by customs bonds.
2. Whether § 580 interest may be recovered in addition to interest authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1505(d) in an action against a surety on customs bonds.
3. Whether the bond language and the customs statutory scheme limit a surety’s exposure to statutory interest on unpaid antidumping duties.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade’s holding that § 580 does not apply to bonds securing antidumping duties.
- The court held that § 580 applies to suits on customs bonds seeking recovery of unpaid antidumping duties and allows the government to seek § 580 interest.
- The court rejected the view that antidumping duties fall outside the term “duties” in § 580.
- The court concluded that § 580 and § 1505(d) address different kinds of interest and may both apply when their respective prerequisites are satisfied.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding that § 580 interest is available.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory text controls where unambiguous: § 580’s reference to “all bonds” and suits “for the recovery of duties” is broad and contains no carve-out for antidumping duties.
- Antidumping duties are “duties” for purposes of customs collection provisions when assessed and collected through the customs framework.
- When Congress intends to distinguish antidumping duties from other duties, it does so expressly; the absence of an express exclusion in § 580 supports inclusion.
- Bond terms obligating payment of “any duty, tax or charge” generally encompass antidumping duties and statutory interest authorized in enforcement litigation, subject to applicable limits.
- Interest regimes may be cumulative when they serve different roles: § 1505(d) governs interest on unpaid duties after liquidation, while § 580 governs interest recoverable in suits on duty-payment bonds.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that 19 U.S.C. § 580 applies to customs bonds securing antidumping duties, permitting the United States to seek § 580 interest from a surety in litigation to recover unpaid antidumping duties, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that interpretation.


United States v. American Home Assurance Co., 789 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015)