United States v. Ford Motor Co.
United States Court of International Trade
29 Ct. Int’l Trade 793 (2005)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant) imported automotive tooling dies into the United States. Upon entry, Ford disclosed merchandise values that did not account for certain engineering changes that had made the merchandise more valuable. The United States Customs Service (customs) (plaintiff) began looking into Ford’s entries. In October 1990, a customs agent reached out to Ford’s legal counsel in connection with an investigation of a different company. In March 1991, the agent wrote in the Ford investigative record that he believed Ford had violated customs laws. In June 1991, customs issued a summons to Ford requesting documents related to the violations. Then, in August 1991, Ford wrote a letter to customs revealing the nature of the violation, identifying the merchandise entered, and disclosing the correct information that should have been submitted at entry. After investigating Ford’s entries, customs determined that Ford had made false statements regarding the true value of the imported goods, resulting in an underpayment of duties. Ford filed an action before the United States Court of International Trade seeking payment of unpaid duties in addition to civil penalties. Ford sought to have penalties reduced due to prior disclosure of the violations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tsoucalas, 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.