United States v. F.A.G. Bearings Corp., (1984)

7 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Modes, Inc.

    804 F. Supp. 360 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992)   Cited 6 times

    The Teraoka rationale has been widely rejected within the civil penalty context of § 1592. As the court observed in United States v. F.A.G. Bearings Corp. Ltd., 8 CIT 201, 615 F. Supp. 562 (1984), a reading of the statute permitting civil penalties only where the fraudulent statement concerned otherwise excludable goods "would emasculate [§ 1592], depriving the United States Government of one of its more effective and widely-used customs civil enforcement statutes." 8 CIT at 209; 615 F. Supp. at 569.

  2. U.S. v. Daewoo Intern. (America) Corp.

    696 F. Supp. 1534 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that overvaluation of steel imports that did not result in duty underpayment nevertheless was material in disguising actual entered value, on which depended the administration of the “trigger price mechanism” implemented to identify potential situations in which the U.S. Department of Commerce would self-initiate an antidumping duty investigation

    However, Teraoka has not been well received by this, or other courts construing § 1592. To the extent Teraoka implies that an entry is only accomplished "by means of" a false document where the entry would otherwise be restricted or prohibited, the courts have refused to engraft such a requirement on § 1592. United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. F.A.G. Bearings Corp., 8 CIT 201, 615 F. Supp. 562 (1984); United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Ltd., 8 CIT 294, 598 F. Supp. 401 (1984). Application of Teraoka would emasculate the essential civil enforcement statute of § 1592.

  3. U.S. v. Obron Atlantic Corp.

    862 F. Supp. 378 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994)   Cited 6 times
    Finding jurisdiction where Customs improperly imposed seven-day response period because defendant was not deprived of opportunity to be heard as it submitted materials and made oral representations following both pre-penalty and penalty notices

    " USCIT Rule 9(b). It is necessary to determine whether plaintiff has satisfied "[t]he critical phrase of rule 9(b)" by setting forth "the circumstances constituting fraud." United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Corp., 8 CIT 201, 206, 615 F. Supp. 562, 567 (1984). The complaint clearly shows plaintiff set forth "the circumstances constituting fraud."

  4. Schwarzkopf Technologies v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool

    820 F. Supp. 150 (D. Del. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    Rule 9(b) and Rule 8(a) operate in conjunction with another in that Rule 9(b) tightens the pleading requirements for cases of fraud. U.S. v. F.A.G. Bearings, 615 F.Supp. 562 (1984).

  5. U.S. v. Islip, (1998)

    18 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1998)   Cited 45 times
    Interpreting Article 10(b) and (c)'s “competent person” provision broadly

    In this Court, plaintiffs were held to have alleged fraud with sufficient particularity under USCIT R. 9(b) when they set forth in their complaints the kinds of informational elements mentioned above. In United States v. F.A.G. Bearings Corp., 8 CIT 201, 206-07, 615 F. Supp. 562, 566 (1984), the Court held that USCIT R. 9(b) was satisfied by a complaint that specified the "time, place, and contents" of the alleged false representations, details which "fairly apprise defendant of the charges against it so that an answer may be prepared."

  6. United States v. Chow

    841 F. Supp. 1286 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that court must provide litigant with "fair opportunity to be heard"

    Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind of a person may be averred generally.See United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Corp., 8 CIT 201, 615 F. Supp. 562 (1984). Rather than state the circumstances constituting the fraud with particularity, Customs makes conclusory statements in its complaint.

  7. United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Ltd., (1984)

    598 F. Supp. 401 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984)   Cited 8 times
    In United States v. F.A.G. Bearings Corp., 7 C.I.T. ___, Slip Op. 84-4 (Jan. 25, 1984) (F.A.G. I), the court conditionally denied defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court, however, ordered plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in conformity with the particularity requirement of rule 9(b) and the notice requirement of rule 8(a)(2).

    Defendant's interpretation would "emasculate that provision, depriving the United States Government of one of its more effective and widely-used customs civil enforcement statutes." United States v. F.A.G. Bearings, Corp., 8 CIT ___, Slip Op. 84-109 (Oct. 4, 1984), at 15. The Court holds that section 1592 applies to the merchandise entered by the defendant.