United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.

Slip Op. 07-142

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
________________________________________
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Court No. 01-01106
v. :
:
INN FOODS, INC., :
:
Defendant. :
________________________________________:

Held: Inn Foods’ entry into the United States of the
merchandise subject to this action constituted fraud in violation
of 19 U.S.C. § 1592. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice (Michael S. Dufault and David S. Silverbrand)
for Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, for the United States,
Plaintiff.

Horton, Whiteley & Cooper (Robert Scott Whiteley; Michael Jon
Horton) for Inn Foods, Inc., Defendant.

Dated: September 25, 2007

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: The Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection of the Department of Homeland Security (“Customs” or
Court No. 01-01106 Page 2

“Plaintiff”)1 commenced this action against Inn Foods, Inc. (“Inn

Foods” or “Defendant”) to recover civil penalties and collect

customs duties for fraudulent, grossly negligent or negligent

violations of section 592 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1592 (1988).2 This case is before this Court on remand

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

See United States v. Inn Foods (“Inn Foods CAFC”), 383 F.3d 1319

(2004).

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1582 (2000). For the reasons explained below, the Court

finds in favor of Plaintiff, that Inn Foods’ entry into the United

States of the merchandise subject to this action constituted a

fraudulent violation of § 1592.3

BACKGROUND

Inn Foods, a California company established in 1976, is a

1
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection was renamed
United States Customs and Border Protection, effective March 31,
2007. See Name Change From the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, 72 Fed. Reg. 20,131 (April 23, 2007).
2
The subject entries span § 1592 (1988) and § 1592
(1982). The relevant language is identical in all material
respects.
3
Because the Court finds that Defendant has committed a
fraudulent violation of § 1592, it does not address the merits of
Plaintiff's alternative gross negligence and negligence claims.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 3

“source of frozen fruits and vegetables for food services,

industrial and private label markets.”4 Inn Foods and Seaveg,

Ltd., a Cayman Islands corporation, were founded by Jack Randle and

Fred Haas as subsidiaries of the same parent company. See Trial

Transcript (“Tr.”) vol. 3, 366-71, Feb. 23, 2007. This case

involves the importation of frozen produce into the United States

by Inn Foods and Seaveg from six Mexican growers, from a period

commencing on or about January 22, 1987 to on or about January 19,

1990. See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 6.

On December 14, 2001, the United States filed a Complaint

against Inn Foods “to enforce a claim for civil penalties, and to

collect lawful Customs duties and fees of which the United States

was deprived as a result of violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a).”5

Compl. ¶ 2.

This case is before the Court on remand from Inn Foods CAFC,

383 F.3d 1319. A three day bench trial was held February 21

through February 23, 2007. Parties submitted post-trial briefs

on March 14, 2007. Pursuant to USCIT Rule 52(a), “[i]n all

actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . , the court

4

http://www.innfoods.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/companies.main/
5
At the United States’ request Inn Foods agreed to four
successive two-year waivers of the statute of limitations
contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1621 beginning on December 15, 1993. See
Inn Foods CAFC, 383 F.3d at 1321.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 4

shall find the facts specially and state separately its

conclusions of law thereon.” USCIT R. 52(a).

Inn Foods stipulated, regarding the subject entries, that

“[t]he prices declared to Customs for the entries that are the

subject of the complaint filed in this matter, which are

represented in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, were undervalued and did

not reflect the prices actually paid to the six Mexican

growers/packers.” Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Material Facts

¶ 1. Inn Foods also stipulated that the “dutiable values, and

loss of revenue for each of the entries represented in

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 2, are correct.” Id. at ¶ 2; Exhibit

(“Ex.”) 1 and 2.6 The lost duties were stipulated to be in the

amount of $624,602.55, plus interest.7 See id.

Since Inn Foods has acknowledged “erroneous compliance” in

entering the produce described herein into the United States, the

central question for this Court is the level of culpability

attributable to Inn Foods (i.e., fraud, gross negligence or

negligence) and the penalties to be imposed. See Def.’s post-

trial Br. (“Def.’s Br.”) at i.

6
Plaintiff’s exhibits are numerically designated while
Defendant’s are alphabetically designated.
7
This amount is composed of $618,356.85 in lawful duties
and $6,245.70 in merchandise processing fees. See Compl. ¶ 18.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 5

DISCUSSION

The Inn Foods contracts with the Mexican growers at the

heart of this case are easily summarized. Seaveg, the exclusive

broker on most of the agreements, established an initial market

price for the merchandise. Seventy percent of the initially set

sales price would be paid upon Inn Foods receiving the produce in

cold storage in the U.S., with the remaining thirty percent paid

within sixty days of entry (subject to certain adjustments).8

See Pl.’s post-trial Br. (“Pl.’s Br.”) at 4; Ex. 52-58. The

final price, therefore, would not be known until the goods were

resold by Inn Foods. See id.

Customs claims that the produce that is the subject of this

action was “entered, introduced or caused to be entered or

introduced, into the United States by means of material and false

documents, statements, acts and/or omissions, in that Inn Foods

knowingly, intentionally, and fraudulently filed or caused to be

filed, and/or aided or abetted Seaveg in the filing of entry

documents that contained materially false statements or

omissions” in violation of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1481, 1484 and 1592.

8
The adjustments include: (1) a four percent packer
allowance deducted for Inn Foods; (2) a three percent brokerage
fee deducted for Seaveg; (3) deductions for all storage and
inspection costs; and (4) a deduction if the eventual sales price
was lower than the initial Seaveg-set price or a splitting of
profits with the packer if the eventual sales price was higher
than the initial Seaveg-set price. See Ex. 52-58.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 6

Compl. ¶ 11. Inn Foods responds that “its good faith, but

erroneous compliance in this case was the result of ordinary

negligence borne out of inexperience in Customs matters.” Def.’s

Br. at i.

At trial the Court heard testimony from ten witnesses.

Customs produced eight witnesses who testified, among other

things, to factual matters concerning: (i) the import operations

of Inn Foods and Seaveg, including the nature of the agreements

between Inn Foods and Seaveg and the Mexican growers; and (ii)

Customs’ investigation of Inn Foods and Customs’ factual findings

resulting from the investigation.9 Inn Foods produced two

witnesses who testified, among other things, to factual matters

concerning the import operations of Inn Food and Seaveg,

including the nature of the agreements between Inn Foods and

Seaveg and the Mexican growers.10

9
The eight Customs witnesses (and titles during the time
in question) produced were Cathy Sauceda, import specialist for
Customs (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 25-26, Feb. 21, 2007); Lawrence
Krautkremer, Customs investigator (Id. at 86); Rosa McLean,
regulatory auditor for Customs (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 143, Feb. 22,
2007); Carlos Martinez, auditor for Customs (Id. at 170);
Elizabeth Olivarez, account manager with Inn Foods (Id. at 238);
Ronald Maker, chief financial officer for VPS Companies (Id. at
297); Irma Villarreal, office manager at B&D Brokers (Trial Tr.
vol. 3, 333, Feb. 23, 2007); and Fred Haas, co-owner of VPS and
Secretary/Treasurer of Inn Foods (Id. at 366-67).
10
The two Inn Foods witnesses (and titles during the time
in question) produced were Louise McNary, Inn Foods’ accounting
supervisor( Trial Tr. vol. 3, 360, Feb. 23, 2007); and Jack
Randle, Chairman of the Board of the VPS companies (Id. at 394).
Court No. 01-01106 Page 7

At trial Customs introduced documents relating to its

investigation (including (i) the contractual agreements between

Inn Foods and Seaveg and the Mexican growers, and (ii) the

factura invoices upon which Customs duties were paid along with

the corresponding Inn Foods invoices) and the Court admitted such

documents into evidence.

The Court finds the documentary evidence introduced by

Customs coupled with the testimonial evidence obtained by Customs

highly probative.

In accordance with USCIT R. 52(a) and having given due

consideration to the testimony of all ten witnesses and numerous

exhibits presented at trial and admitted by the Court, the Court

enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The relationship between Inn Foods and Seaveg

1. Inn Foods and Seaveg, Ltd. (“Seaveg”) were founded by Jack

Randle and Fred Haas as subsidiaries of the same parent

company. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 369-71, Feb. 23, 2007. Inn

Foods was founded in the 1970's. See id. at 368.

2. Seaveg, a Cayman Islands corporation, was formed as a shell

company to facilitate sales to customers who did not want to

buy from Inn Foods (i.e., by using a different corporate
Court No. 01-01106 Page 8

name that would not necessarily be associated with Inn

Foods). See id. at 371; Compl. ¶ 4.

3. Inn Foods and Seaveg were located and operated in the same

building in Watsonville, California. See Ex. 46-49. Inn

Foods and Seaveg had the same phone number and the same

address. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 65, Feb. 21, 2007.

4. Inn Food and Seaveg had the same principals (Mr. Randle and

Mr. Haas) and shared employees. See Trial Tr. vol. 2, 243-

44, 246, Feb. 22, 2007. Mr. Randle and Mr. Haas were the

final authority for all business decisions involving both

Inn Foods and Seaveg. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 373, Feb. 23,

2007.

5. Ms. Olivarez, who worked for both Inn Foods and Seaveg,

considered Seaveg to be a department of Inn Foods. See

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 243-44, Feb. 22, 2007.

6. The books of accounting for Inn Foods and Seaveg were

organized as if they were for one corporate entity. See id.

at 173, 228.

7. In the Seaveg sales agreement dated March 30, 1989 with one

of the Mexican packers (La Esperanza of Miranda, S.P.R.R.L.)

“Seaveg Limited/Inn Foods, Inc.” is listed as the entity

with whom the agreement is made. Ex. 54

8. Checks for merchandise were issued from Inn Foods regardless

of whether Seaveg or Inn Foods was the importer of record.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 9

See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 65, Feb. 21, 2007; Ex. 73.

9. Mr. Randle and Mr. Haas appointed Lou Colon as President of

Seaveg. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 374-75, Feb. 23, 2007. Mr.

Colon reported directly to them and did not have any final

authority in any decisions involving Seaveg. See id. at

375.

10. Mr. Colon initiated import orders for the subject entries by

calling the particular Mexican grower and placing an order

at a particular price. See Trial Tr. vol. 2, 284-85, Feb.

22, 2007.

11. Seaveg filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and was dissolved on

December 1, 1998, in order to avoid the possible payment of

Customs duties and penalties. See id. at 306; Trial Tr.

vol. 3, 384, Feb. 23, 2007; Compl. ¶ 4.

12. Inn Foods was a participant on some level in all the Seaveg

actions described herein.

B. The Sales Agreements

13. Inn Foods and Seaveg entered into sales agreements with six

Mexican growers to purchase frozen produce for importation

into the United States (the “Sales Agreements”). See Ex. 52-

58; Trial Tr. vol. 2, 201-04, Feb. 22, 2007. These Sales

Agreements contained nearly identical language and

structure, and each was signed by either Mr. Haas or Mr.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 10

Colon. See id.

14. Seaveg was the exclusive broker on most of the Sales

Agreements and established the initial market price of the

frozen produce. See Ex. 52-58.

15. Pursuant to the Sales Agreements, seventy percent of the

purchase price would be paid upon Inn Foods’ and Seaveg’s

receipt of the produce at designated cold storage locations

in the Unites States. See Ex. 52-58. The remaining thirty

percent would be paid within sixty days of delivery into

storage after certain adjustments were made. See id.

16. For each order, the Mexican growers issued an invoice (a

“factura”), which then was sent to Inn Foods or Seaveg. See

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 285-86, Feb. 22, 2007. The factura

invoices would contain a specific invoice number and product

description. See id.

17. The factura invoices submitted to Customs by the Mexican

packers did not reflect the price ultimately paid by Inn

Foods for the merchandise. Joint Stipulation of Undisputed

Material Facts ¶ 1.

18. For each order, Mr. Colon’s assistant, Ms. Olivares, would

bring the factura invoice to Mr. Colon for him to reprice

the invoice (i.e., to adjust the value of the produce higher

in line with the Mexican grower’s remittance amount). See

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 251-57, 286, Feb. 22, 2007.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 11

19. Ms. Olivares would then enter the adjusted prices into Inn

Foods’ accounting system along with the original Mexican

invoice number and description of the goods from the

factura. See id. at 286-87.

20. After Ms. Olivares entry function, Inn Foods would create

its own invoice for the specific transaction (retaining the

original Mexican invoice number and item description). See

id. at 287-88. Upon this Inn Foods invoice, Inn Foods would

type the calculations of the amount that would be the

Mexican grower’s remittance. See id. at 288.

21. Inn Foods would subsequently send an order confirmation to

the Mexican grower with the adjusted price. See id. at 287-

88.

22. For certain subject entries, the Mexican growers would send

B&D their invoices prior to the entry of goods and B&D would

forward them on to Inn Foods to inform Inn Foods of the

shipment and to allow Inn Foods to check the accuracy of the

invoice. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 344-47, Feb. 23, 2007.

23. Inn Foods maintained both the undervalued Mexican growers’

invoices and the adjusted Inn Food generated invoices in

their accounting files. See Ex. 3-40.

24. After each of the subject entries was made and Customs

duties paid, Inn Foods’ Customs broker, B & D Customhouse

Brokers, Inc. (“B&D”) would send Inn Foods their broker bill
Court No. 01-01106 Page 12

containing an itemization of costs incurred for the

particular entries, which included a copy of the undervalued

Mexican factura invoice and the Customs duty paid on that

factura invoice. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 62, Feb. 21, 2007;

Trial Tr. vol. 3, 338-41, Feb. 23, 2007; Ex. 73.

25. Each of the B&D broker bills was reviewed by Inn Foods’

accounting supervisor, Ms. McNary, or by the person

assisting Ms. McNary with that particular Mexican grower

account. Trial Tr. vol. 2, 281-84, Feb. 22, 2007; Trial Tr.

vol. 3, 342-43, Feb. 23, 2007.

26. B&D stressed to Mr. Colon on several occasions the

importance of ensuring that the actual value being presented

to Customs for the subject entries was accurate upon entry.

See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 344, Feb. 23, 2007.

27. Mr. Colon confirmed to both B&D and to Achilles Customs

Broker (“Achilles”), another Inn Foods’ customs broker, that

the values presented on the factura invoices were accurate.

See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 116-19, Feb. 21, 2007.11

28. Mr. Colon would sometimes call Achilles regarding questions

11
The B&D office manager had explained to Mr. Colon in
detail in a phone conversation how Customs’ duties were
determined. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 116, Feb. 21, 2007. In the
conversation with the Achilles Customs Broker where Mr. Colon
verified that the prices were correct, Mr. Colon told the Broker
that he had been able to obtain the produce at a good price. Id.
at 118-19.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 13

on particular shipments, and refer to information from the

factura invoices. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 118-20, Feb. 21,

2007.

29. One of the Mexican growers - Fruveza - sent a letter to

Seaveg specifically demonstrating that their typical factura

would undervalue the price of the goods they shipped.12 See

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 276-79, Feb. 22, 2007. Ex. 69.

30. On April 17, 1989, B&D directed a letter (the “B&D Letter”)

to Ms. Sauceda on Inn Foods’ behalf stating that the value

on shipments of frozen vegetables “entered as of April 10,

1989 is strictly for Customs clearance.” The letter also

added that “[l]iquidation of said entries is to be withheld

until the importer of record, SeaVeg, Ltd. / Inn Foods,

Inc., is able to complete the audit of their files and

arrive at a true transaction value.” Trial Tr. vol. 1, 79-

80, Feb. 21, 2007; Trial Tr. vol. 3, 354-57, Feb. 23, 2007;

Ex. F.

31. Before the B&D letter neither Inn Foods nor Seaveg ever

12
The Fruveza letter (in Spanish with a handwritten
translation by Ms. Olivarez) addressed to Mr. Colon and Ms.
Olivarez, lists five Conditions of Sale, and concludes with an
example of how a typical shipment of broccoli spears would appear
on their factura invoice. The example has two lines: (1) the
first line is translated by Ms. Olivarez as “We ship 1500 112/21
Broccoli Spears at 0.50/lb” and (2)the second line is translated
by Ms. Olivarez as “My invoice will read 1500 112/21 Spears at
0.28/lb.” Ex. 69.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 14

informed B&D that the final price of the frozen produce

would not be determined until after their entry into the

United States and that the factura invoices did not contain

true transaction values. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 356-57, Feb.

23, 2007.

32. Before April 1989 neither Inn Foods nor Seaveg ever informed

Customs that the final price of the frozen produce would not

be determined until after their entry into the United States

and that the factura invoices did not contain true

transaction values. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 62-63, Feb. 21,

2007.

33. Neither Inn Foods nor Seaveg filed updated or amended entry

forms that contained updated values of the goods imported.

Id. at 63.

C. Customs’ Investigation

34. Cathy Sauceda, a Customs import specialist, processed Inn

Foods’ and Seaveg’s import entries of frozen produce

beginning in 1988. See id. at 36.

35. In July and October 1988, Ms. Sauceda made formal requests

(via Customs Form 28 or “CF 28s”) to Inn Foods for

documentation of payments for the produce contained in each

subject entry. See id. at 48-49. Inn Foods never responded
Court No. 01-01106 Page 15

to Ms. Sauceda’s initial request. See id.

36. Ms. Sauceda issued a CF 28 follow-up request for information

in February 1989. See id. In March 1989, after the third CF

28 was sent, Ms. Sauceda received Inn Foods’ response. See

id. at 50.

37. After receiving Inn Foods’ response, Ms. Sauceda discovered

that the amount paid by Inn Foods to the Mexican sellers for

the subject entries was higher than the corresponding

entries on the Mexican factura invoices presented to

Customs. See id. at 50-51.

38. Ms. Sauceda contacted Inn Foods about the price

discrepancies she observed. See id. at 56-60. During one

such call to Inn Foods, Ms. Sauceda asked Ms. McNary if Inn

Foods used another invoice in addition to the Mexican

factura and was told by Ms. McNary that the factura invoice

was the only invoice. See id. at 58. The following day Ms.

Sauceda informed Mr. Colon of the false invoice she had seen

and informed him of the Prior disclosure statute (i.e., 19

C.F.R. § 162.74). See id. at 58-59.

39. Ms. Sauceda spoke with Inn Foods’ Customs brokers, B&D and

Achilles, and confirmed that they both would provide Seaveg

and Inn Foods copies of the factura invoices that were being

presented to Customs for the shipments they were importing.

See id. at 61-62.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 16

40. On April 10, 1989, Ms. Sauceda informed Mr. Colon that she

had referred the Inn Foods case for investigation. See id.

at 60.

41. After receiving Ms. Sauceda’s referral in May 1989, Customs

Special Agent Larry Krautkremer initiated an investigation

of Inn Foods in June 1989. See id. at 88-89. Ex. 42d at

1248; 42h at 1275.

42. Inn Foods attempted to make a prior disclosure on July 19,

1989. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 83, Feb. 21, 2007. Inn Foods

and Seaveg failed to make this disclosure before Ms. Sauceda

informed Mr. Colon of her referral of the case for

investigation on April 10, 1989. See id. at 60-61, 83.

43. During the period of investigation Seaveg declared

bankruptcy. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 384-85, Feb. 23, 2007.

44. The domestic value of the subject produce at issue here was

$15,319,513.35. Ex. 2.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Inn Foods is responsible for all liabilities

Inn Foods argues that “[t]here is no evidence in the record

of knowledge or intent on [its part] to fraudulently aid and abet

Seaveg in the filing of false entries.” Def.’s Br. at 12. This
Court No. 01-01106 Page 17

contention misrepresents the facts of the case as to the

relationship between Inn Foods and Seaveg. It bears noting here

that Inn Foods and Seaveg (i) were owned and controlled by the

same people; (ii) had the same phone number and operated from

the same building; (iii) utilized the same employees and

officers, and utilized them in the same roles; (iv) paid

invoices, regardless of which of the two was the importer of

record, from Inn Foods’ accounts; (v) had intermingled accounting

ledgers; (vi) would combine their names in certain of their

contracts and (vii) appeared to be the same entity for all

intents and purposes to both its own employees and to Customs.

Seaveg, a shell corporation, was admittedly created solely to

assist Inn Foods, an operating company and its sister subsidiary,

to better conduct its business by providing Inn Foods the use of

a different company name to facilitate sales without raising the

ire of certain customers. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 371, Feb. 23,

2007.

This Court’s predecessor stated that “[a] corporation may be

an alter ego or business conduit of another and its separate

corporate existence will not be recognized where it is so

organized and controlled and its business conducted in such a

manner as to make it merely an agency or instrumentality of the

other corporation.” Service Afloat, Inc. v. United States, 68
Court No. 01-01106 Page 18

Cust.Ct. 225, 232, 337 F.Supp. 458, 464 (1972)(citation omitted);

see also VWP of America, Inc. v. United States, 21 CIT 1109,

1115, 980 F. Supp. 1280, 1287 (1997) (vacated on other

grounds)(“The Court will look through the form to find the

underlying function. If it is apparent that a subsidiary is

merely an alter ego of the parent, the Court will not hesitate to

disregard the constructive fiction.”). In this case Seaveg is an

alter ego, or perhaps more appropriately an alias, of its sister

subsidiary Inn Foods. Therefore, the fact that Seaveg and Inn

Foods were incorporated as two separate entities does not shield

Inn Foods from Customs duties and penalties owed on actions it

took partly under the name of Seaveg.

In addition, the Court finds that the Inn Foods corporate

entity itself was involved in one way or another (as described

supra) in the transactions that are at issue in this case. For

the foregoing reasons, Inn Foods is responsible for all the

Customs duties and penalties owed in the actions described

herein.

B. Inn Foods’ Conduct was Fraudulent

Customs has alleged that Inn Foods violated 19 U.S.C.

§ 1592, thereby depriving the United States of a portion of

lawful duty through fraud, or in the alternative, gross

negligence or negligence. See Compl. ¶¶ 23, 26, 29. In actions
Court No. 01-01106 Page 19

brought for the recovery of any monetary penalty claimed under

this provision, all issues are tried de novo, including the

amount of the penalty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(6); 19 U.S.C. §

1592(e)(1).

A violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1) occurs when a person

or entity makes a material false statement or omission in

connection with the entry of merchandise into the United States

and that false statement or omission is the result of fraud,

gross negligence, or negligence. See 19 U.S.C.

§1592(a)(1)(1988). The level of culpability has a direct

correlation to the maximum amount of penalty that can be

assessed. See 19 U.S.C. § 1592(c).

In pertinent part, 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1) states:

Without regard to whether the United States is or may

be deprived of all or a portion of any lawful duty

thereby, no person, by fraud, gross negligence, or

negligence–

(A) may enter, introduce, or attempt to enter or

introduce any merchandise into the commerce of the

United States by means of–

(i) any document, written or oral statement,

or act which is material and false, or
Court No. 01-01106 Page 20

(ii) any omission which is material . . .

19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1).

To prove a fraudulent violation of the statute, the

Plaintiff must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that

the Defendant (1) deliberately introduced merchandise into the

commerce of the United States by means of material false

statements, acts or omissions; and (2) with intent to defraud the

revenue or otherwise violate the laws of the United States. See

19 U.S.C. §§ 1592(a)(1),(e)(2); United States v. Thorson Chemical

Corp., 16 CIT 441, 447, 795 F. Supp. 1190, 1195 (1992)(citing

United States v. Daewoo Int’l (America)Corp., 12 CIT 889, 896,

696 F. Supp. 1534, 1541 (1988)).

(i) The statements were material and false.

The Customs regulations define a material statement as one

which “has the potential to alter the classification,

appraisement, or admissibility of merchandise, or the liability

for duty.” 19 C.F.R. Pt. 171, App. B(A) (1988). The issue of

materiality is for the Court to determine. See United States v.

Hitachi Am., Ltd., 21 CIT 373, 386, 964 F. Supp. 344, 360 (1997),

aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 172 F.3d 1319
Court No. 01-01106 Page 21

(Fed. Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,

10 CIT 38, 42, 628 F. Supp. 206, 210 (1986) (stating that “the

measurement of the materiality of the false statement is its

potential impact upon Customs determination of the correct duty

for the imported merchandise”).

As this Court has stated in the past, Section 1592 does not

define the term “false,” and this Court has not specifically

addressed the meaning of the term in the statute; therefore,

“false” must be defined according to its common and ordinary

meaning. See United States v. Rockwell Automation Inc., 30 CIT

__,__, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1248 (2006), (citing Perrin v.

United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)).

The materiality and falseness of the factura invoices

presented to Customs in this case are not really in question

since it is not disputed that (i) the duties Customs received for

the subject entries were solely based on these factura invoices13

and (ii) these factura, which contained valuations of the

merchandise that were significantly less than the later created

Inn Foods invoices for the same goods, resulted in significantly

less duties paid than what was lawfully due. See Ex. 63; Trial

13
Which duties were assessed on an 17.5% ad valorem duty
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States and an
ad valorem merchandise processing fee of .17%. See Trial Tr.
vol. 3, 343-44, Feb. 23, 2007; Compl. ¶ 17.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 22

Tr. vol. 1, 55-56, Feb. 21, 2007. These false invoices, relied

on by Customs, prevented Customs from making the proper

determination of the value of the merchandise and, therefore, of

the lawful duties owed.

The Court finds that Customs has demonstrated the

materiality and falsity necessary for fraud through the

documentary evidence introduced (including the factura invoices

and the corresponding and subsequently created Inn Foods

invoices), in combination with the testimonial evidence that

explains the accounting and business procedures Inn Foods had in

place in support of their double-invoicing system.

(ii) The intent to defraud.

To prove a fraudulent violation of § 1592, the United States

must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the importer

“‘knowingly’ entered goods by means of a material false statement

[or omission].” United States v. Hitachi Am., Ltd., 172 F.3d

1319, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1999); 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). That is to

say, Customs must demonstrate that “the material false statement

or act in connection with the transaction was committed (or

omitted) knowingly, i.e., was done voluntarily and

intentionally.” United States v. Obron Atl. Corp., 18 CIT 771,

778, 862 F. Supp 378, 384 (1994) (citing 19 C.F.R. Pt. 171, App.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 23

B); United States v. Jac Natori Co., Ltd., 17 CIT 348, 352, 821

F. Supp 1514, 1519 (1993). “Intent is a factual determination

particularly within the province of the trier of fact.” Allen

Organ Co. v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed. Cir.

1988).

It is undisputed that for each shipment of merchandise Inn

Foods received two, and sometimes three, copies of the

undervalued facturas presented to Customs by the Mexican growers:

first, Inn Foods received a copy of the false and undervalued

factura invoice directly from the applicable Mexican grower (see

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 285-86, Feb. 22, 2007); second, B&D would, when

available, also send a copy of the factura invoices to alert Inn

Foods of the shipment before it crossed the U.S. border (see

Trial Tr. vol. 3, 344-48, Feb. 23, 2007); lastly, B&D would

forward the factura invoices along with their Broker’s bill (see

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 284, Feb. 22, 2007). Inn Foods knew that these

false invoices contained, in every instance, undervalued prices

for the merchandise, because the Inn Foods’ “re-pricing” process

entailed creating a subsequent Inn Foods invoice, combining

identification information from the factura invoice with the

original higher price negotiated for the purchase. There is

therefore no question that Inn Foods reviewed both invoices and

knew the factura invoices were not matching up with the
Court No. 01-01106 Page 24

corresponding Inn Foods invoices.14

Furthermore, B&D stressed to Inn Foods several times the

importance of ensuring that Customs received the actual value for

ad valorem merchandise (i.e., all the frozen produce subject

herein) and the B&D office manager had explained to Mr. Colon in

detail the process through which Customs’ duties were determined.

See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 344, Feb. 23, 2007. Inn Foods’ contention

in its post-trial brief that as “[a] novice importer, [it] relied

on the Mexican exporters and their customs brokers to create the

documents used to make declarations and to enter merchandise,”

rings untrue. Def.’s Br. at 10. Despite Inn Foods’ claim of

“inexperience in Customs matters,” at the time of this action Inn

Foods had already been in business for years and the shipments in

question were not a one-time occurrence, but spanned

approximately three years. Trial Tr. vol. 3, 368, Feb. 23, 2007;

Ex. 1. In fact, far from the babe in the woods, it is clear from

the totality of the evidence that Inn Foods’ intent was to

conceal the undervaluation scheme both from Customs and from Inn

Foods’ own Brokers and to mislead both as to the true value of

14
For example, the Broker bill was checked for accuracy
by Inn Foods’ controller, Ms. McNary (see Trial Tr. vol. 2, 316-
19, Feb. 22, 2007); and Mr. Colon would sometimes call the
Brokers regarding questions on the factura invoices on particular
shipments (see Trial Tr. vol. 1, 118-20, Feb. 21, 2007).
Court No. 01-01106 Page 25

the goods they were importing.15

In summation, as the government has demonstrated, the

Defendant’s undervaluation scheme is a simple one. Inn Foods and

Seaveg entered into sales agreements with Mexican growers to

purchase frozen produce for importation into the United States.

See Ex. 52-58. Mr. Colon would secure the initial market price

for each subject entry from the Mexican growers over the

telephone. See Trial Tr. vol. 2, 284-85, Feb. 22, 2007. Once

this initial, actual, price was established, the Mexican packer

would issue an undervalued factura invoice for the purposes of

paying less Customs duties. See Trial Tr. vol. 2, 285-86, Feb.

22, 2007. These undervalued invoices were later sent to Inn

Foods and Inn Foods would create a second, accurately priced,

invoice based on product information in the factura. One invoice

served to bring the produce into the United States at a reduced

cost and thus defrauded Customs of duties, the second to keep

accurate accounting records.

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that there was, at

the very least, an implicit yet very clear understanding between

15
For example, although Inn Foods now acknowledges the
double-invoicing system in place at the time, during the Customs
follow-up call from Ms. Sauceda, Ms. McNary told Ms. Sauceda,
with what must have been full knowledge of the falsity of the
statement, that the factura invoice was the only invoice.
Trial Tr. vol. 1, 58-59, Feb. 21, 2007.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 26

Inn Foods and the Mexican growers to undervalue the produce that

Inn Foods and Seaveg were importing. Therefore, the Court finds

that Inn Foods’ entry of the subject merchandise into the Unites

States by means of false and undervalued invoices was voluntary

and intentional. Customs has thus satisfied this element of

fraud by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the

material false statements presented in the factura invoices were

made with the intention of undervaluing the subject entries and

thus defrauding Customs of lawfully owed duties.

The Court finds that Inn Foods fraudulently introduced

merchandise into the commerce of the United States by means of

material and false documents in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1).

C. Additional points raised by Inn Foods

(i) The lack of profit motive

Inn Foods argues that because there was agreement between it

and the Mexican growers “that all duties were ultimately the

responsibility of the Mexican producers,” Inn Foods “had nothing to

gain by this undervaluation of merchandise and the resulting

underpayment of duties.” Def.’s Br. at 1, 8. Inn Foods concedes

that the prices it paid could increase in direct proportion to any

increase in duty payments borne by the growers, but dismisses this
Court No. 01-01106 Page 27

as a motivation because it claims the resulting impact of an

additional $624,000 in duties would have been “statistically

negligible, representing less than 3 percent of its gross profits

during the relevant years.” Id. at 8-9. Ignoring the fact that it

is not obvious to this Court that three percent of gross profits

should be considered a statistically negligible sum, this line of

argument is hardly convincing. There are many reasons, including

those brought out at trial by the United States, in addition to

seeking to avoid an increase in prices, for why Inn Foods might have

chosen to participate in this undervaluation scheme.16 See Trial

Tr. vol. 2, 225-27; Feb. 22, 2007.

(ii) The legal duty to state that the entry was provisional

Inn Foods argues that there was no evidence adduced at trial

that indicates that “Inn Foods knew or understood the legal effect

of post-importation price adjustments to the price actually paid or

payable to the grower/packers based on the U.S. resale prices.”

Def.’s Br. at 8. This argument needlessly confuses the crux of the

wrongdoing, which is that Inn Foods knew that (1) the prices on the

subject entries were significantly undervalued, (2) these

16
Moreover, as there is no requirement under 19 U.S.C. §
1592(a)(1)that there be a monetary gain, Inn Foods’ statistically
negligible sum argument is without merit.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 28

undervaluations caused a commensurate reduction in lawful Customs

duties owed and (3) there was no plan or intention to correct these

undervaluations. Before the April 17, 1989 B&D letter, Inn Foods

had never informed their Broker, B&D, of the provisional nature of

their sales agreements with the Mexican growers (see Trial Tr. vol.

3, 351-53, Feb. 23, 2007), or that the prices of the entry documents

were in any way provisional.17 See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 356-57, Feb.

23, 2007.

Therefore, while Inn Foods correctly states that “there is

nothing sinister, per se, about provisional pricing agreements,” it

is not the provisional pricing agreement here that is at issue, but

the underlying undervaluation scheme in which the provisional

pricing agreements only play a part. Def.’s Br. at 9.

The provisional pricing agreements at the heart of these

transactions are used by Inn Foods as an ex post facto

rationalization to conceal a relatively straight forward

undervaluation scheme. It is telling that Inn Foods has not put

17
Inn Foods argues in its post-trial brief that had it
been “cognizant of an undervaluation scheme. . . it likely would
not have prepared numerous written agreements with the Mexican
growers evidencing the provisional nature of the prices.” Def.’s
Br. at 8. The fact that contracts were entered into between Inn
Foods and Seaveg and the Mexican growers cannot be read as any
evidence of the absence of such an undervaluation scheme,
especially considering that the provisional nature of these
contracts was kept a secret for so long.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 29

forward any evidence that would show that before the Customs

investigation they ever planned to address the factura

undervaluations. It is also telling that Inn Foods has not put

forward any evidence as to how the factura values were calculated,

in order to show some connection, for instance, between that initial

value and the “prices actually paid for the merchandise after

certain post-importation price adjustments were made based on the

final U.S. selling prices.”18 Def.’s Br. at 6. As it stands, it is

clear that the factura values were determined by roughly halving the

true value of the merchandise and that Inn Foods knowingly deprived

Customs of duties for years without any intention to alert Customs

that it was owed more in such duties or to rectify the

undervaluation. As stated earlier, Inn Foods only excuse, that of

ignorance and naivete, is belied by the facts.

(iii) Statute of limitations

There is no merit to Inn Foods’ revised statute of limitations

argument raised in its post-trial brief.

All other arguments raised by Inn Foods are unpersuasive.

18
Inn Foods attached a letter to entries submitted on or
around April 17, 1989, to alert Customs at entry that the
transaction values were provisional. This action was only taken
by Inn Foods after they had been informed that Customs had
referred their case for investigation.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 30

D. Assessment of Penalties

Customs seeks $624,602.55 for unpaid duties and merchandise

processing fees and civil penalties in the amount of $15,319,513.35

if Inn Foods’ conduct is found to be fraudulent; $2,543,800.64 if

Inn Foods is found grossly negligent; or $1,271,900.32 if Inn Foods

is found negligent; in each case plus interest, costs, and fees.19

See Compl. ¶¶ 24, 27, 30.

For violations of fraud under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a), the maximum

penalty is the domestic value of the merchandise (see 19 U.S.C. §

1592(c)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 162.73(a)(1)), in this case

$15,319,513.35. See supra. The plain language of the statute only

sets maximum penalties and does not establish minimum penalties, nor

does it require the Court to begin with the maximum and reduce that

amount in light of mitigating factors. See United States v. Modes,

Inc., 17 CIT 627, 635, 826 F. Supp. 504, 512 (1993). The Court

“possesses the discretion to determine a penalty within the

parameters set by the statute.” Modes, 17 CIT at 636, 826 F. Supp.

at 512 (citations omitted).

In United States v. Complex Machine Works Co., 23 CIT 942,

949-50, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1315 (1999)(citation omitted), this

Court identified a number of factors to be considered when assessing

19
Pre-judgment interest should be computed from the time
of the product liquidation.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 31

a penalty:

1. The defendant’s good faith effort to comply with the

statute,

2. The defendant’s degree of culpability,

3. The defendant’s history of previous violations,

4. The nature of the public interest in ensuring compliance

with the regulations involved,

5. The nature and circumstances of the violation at issue,

6. The gravity of the violation,

7. The defendant’s ability to pay,

8. The appropriateness of the size of the penalty to the

defendant’s business and the effect of a penalty on the

defendant’s ability to continue doing business,

9. That the penalty not otherwise be shocking to the

conscience of the Court,

10. The economic benefit gained by the defendant through the

violation,

11. The degree of harm to the public,

12. The value of vindicating the agency authority,

13. Whether the party sought to be protected by the statute

had been adequately compensated for the harm, and
Court No. 01-01106 Page 32

14. Such other matters as justice may require.

As this Court has noted, and as the United States has pointed

out in their post-trial brief, Ҥ1592 is driven primarily by

considerations of deterrence rather than compensation.” Complex

Machine Works Co., 23 CIT at 950, 83 F. Supp. 2d at 1315.

Accordingly, the Court takes into account that the conduct in

question occurred many years ago and appreciates Inn Foods’

argument, uncontradicted by the United States, that it has since the

period in question corrected its past practices, and has

“unfailingly reported the proper Customs value on its imported

merchandise . . . without further incident.” Def.’s Br. at 27.

After careful consideration of the Complex Machine Works

factors, the evidence and the testimony presented at trial, the

Court has determined that the penalty imposed upon Inn Foods must

be a substantial one, but imposing the maximum penalty under fraud

for the sake of deterring Inn Foods from future transgressions would

not appear to be necessary. Based on the foregoing analysis, the

Court determines that seven million, five hundred thousand dollars

($7,500,000.00) represents a just penalty in this case.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing the Court finds that Customs
has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Inn Foods’ entry

into the United States of the merchandise subject to this action

constituted fraud in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592.

The Court orders that Inn Foods pay $624,602.55 for unpaid

duties plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and civil

penalties in the amount of $7,500,000.00, plus costs and fees and

interest from the date of judgment. Judgment shall enter

accordingly.

/s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: September 25, 2007
New York, New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
________________________________________
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Court No. 01-01106
v. :
:
INN FOODS, INC., :
:
Defendant. :
________________________________________:

JUDGMENT

This case having been heard at trial de novo and submitted for
decision, and the Court, after due deliberation, having rendered a
decision therein; now, in accordance with said decision, it is
hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that a judgment be, and hereby
is, entered in favor of Plaintiff, United States, and against
Defendant, Inn Foods, Inc. (“Inn Foods”) in accordance with the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued contemporaneously
herewith; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall recover
unpaid duties from Inn Foods in the amount of $624,602.55 plus pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall recover
against Inn Foods an assessed civil penalty in the amount of
$7,500,000.00, plus costs and fees and interest from the date of
judgment, for fraud in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592.

/s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: September 25, 2007
New York, New York