the importer. 19 C.F.R. § 141.1 (1997). The regulation cited speaks only to the subject of duty liability and timing. It addresses the unfortunate, but not infrequent, occurrence of the importer’s remitting duties to the broker who then does not remit to U.S. Customs. The regulation makes clear that the importer’s responsibility to Customs continues in such instance; it says nothing to buttress Defendants’ argument on the issue of Wu’s liability. This Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument, especially in view of the posture of this case as one brought to allege a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). The plain language of the statute itself, which uses the term “person” rather than “importer,” refutes Defendants’ contention. See, e.g. Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a) provides as follows:
holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that when a statutes terms are clear and unambiguous on their face there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts