copy of any of the 66 Extension Notices, which it claims were generated and mailed to FORD and to FORD’s surety, and the Defendant cannot even produce the computer tapes which allegedly produced the Extension Notices in the subject entries. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains Ford and its surety conducted extensive searches of their records kept in the regular course of business but located no evidence that the notices had ever been received. Ford also argues “[v]arious courts have held that the failure to receive a notice through the mail raises a presumption that it was not mailed” and asserts this presumption shifts the burden back to the Government to prove the fact of mailing. (Pl.’s Br. at 38-39 (citing F.W. Myers & Co., Inc. v. United States, 6 CIT 215, 217, 574 F.Supp. 1064, 1066 (1983) (<HOLDING>)).) Ford concludes the evidence in this case
holding that nonreceipt of notice of hearing is not irregularity when notice is sent in precise accord with requirements of court rules holding affidavit stating we searched our files and were unable to locate any notice of customs service action on this protest and we believe that no notification was sent to us was sufficient to raise the presumption of nonreceipt of notice holding that our use of the subjunctive in mentioning an argument in passing suggests that we knew that we were not addressing and that we could not address that argument holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action holding that the invocation of a presumption of notice requires the agency to prove that the notice was properly addressed