Exporter's Bid to Release Seized Aluminum Continues After Court Finds Government Statements 'Blatantly Untrue'

An exporter's bid to secure the return of $25 million in aluminum products seized by CBP will continue, after the Central California U.S. District Court on April 21 denied a government motion to dismiss the case. Lawyers for the government had argued Perfectus’ case couldn’t seek the return of the aluminum products because the administrative forfeiture process was already underway. The court decided in Perfectus’ favor after finding the government lawyers’ claims were “blatantly untrue.”

CBP detained the 550 containers at issue in September, before seizing them in January. The aluminum goods were destined for export to Vietnam. Export documents associated with the shipment said the containers held alloyed aluminum extrusions, but they actually contained aluminum pallets (see 1702130026). Domestic producers have claimed aluminum pallets are used to evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (see 1511190007), and Commerce recently found pallets made of a certain aluminum alloy are covered by the scope of the AD/CV duty orders (see 1612220051). Perfectus says that scope ruling did not apply to its pallets.

Perfectus filed suit in January, seeking court-ordered release of the containers and compensation for demurrage incurred after the aluminum goods were detained but before they were seized. The government said the case should be dismissed. “Perfectus is currently and actually exercising its rights to pursue its legal remedies” through the administrative forfeiture process,” it said. The case is unnecessary because it is “beyond question” that the “administrative forfeiture proceedings are indisputably underway,” the government said.

“No administrative forfeiture proceedings, however, have commenced,” the court said. The administrative forfeiture process is not even available in this case because the merchandise is valued at $25 million, well above the $500,000 threshold for administrative proceedings, it said. “It is shocking and deeply disappointing that the United States Attorney’s Office would file a brief with this Court so replete with falsities,” the court said. Though the government contended that the wrong information was included by mistake, its “repeated assertions” on the existence of an administrative case point to the contrary, it said. The Justice Department did not immediately comment.

Perfectus’ case will continue because the company otherwise “lacks an adequate remedy at law to challenge the government’s seizure,” the court said. But its petition for damages from the period between detention and seizure was dropped from the case because Perfectus already submitted a Federal Torts Claims Act claim with CBP. The government now has 90 days to decide whether to “commence a civil judicial forfeiture action, include the property in a criminal forfeiture allegation in an indictment, obtain an extension of the filing period from the court, or promptly return the property,” the court said. Perfectus and the government shall “meet and confer in the interim regarding what can be done to expedite release of the Seized Property,” the court said.

Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the court ruling.