Sioux Honey Association v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
672 F.3d 1041 (2012)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Under the Tariff Act of 1930, companies seeking to import products to the United States for sale under domestic market rates were assessed antidumping duties in order to protect the domestic market from unfair competition. Instead of paying duties at the time of entry, importers were required to post a customs bond for the expected amount of the duties. These bonds were guaranteed by entities such as insurance companies known as sureties, and the sole beneficiary of these bonds was the United States government (government) (defendant). The Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) required the distribution of antidumping duties among domestic producers affected by dumping practices. Sioux Honey Association (Sioux) (plaintiff), a domestic producer, sued the government, alleging, among other things, that the government had failed to collect millions of dollars of antidumping duties that would have been distributed to producers that, like Sioux, were third-party beneficiaries of the bonds. The United States Court of International Trade dismissed Sioux’s claims, and Sioux appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prost, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
