a mistake of law based on whether the importer had actual knowledge of the nature and use of the goods at issue. In cases where the Court has concluded an importer did not know the facts as they really were, and therefore lacked true knowledge of the ultimate character of the merchandise, the Court has found a mistake of fact existed. See, e.g., Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT 516, 518, 715 F.Supp. 1113, 1114 (1989) (distinguishing “decisional” mistakes where party makes wrong choice between two known alternate set of facts, and “ignorant” mistakes, where party is unaware of the existence of the correct set of facts; holding only “ignorant” mistakes can be challenged pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1)); PPG Industries, Inc., 7 CIT at 125, 1984 WL 3749 at *6 (<HOLDING>). In addition to allowing correction for
holding that due process requires that defendant be fully aware of direct consequences of guilty plea holding that where a defendant acknowledged awareness of the consequences of his plea agreement counsels erroneous explanation of the consequences was not prejudicial holding mistake of law exists where importer is fully aware of the merchandises nature but believes the legal consequences of it to be other than what they were holding that unless the actor desires to cause consequences of his act or  believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it  he has not committed a wilful and malicious injury as defined under  523a6 citing to restatement second of torts  8a 1964 internal citations omitted holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant