121 F. Supp. 3d 1296
Ct. Intl. Trade2015Background
- American Power Pull imported industrial hand trucks from Qingdao Taifa (China) on May 24 and June 14, 2006; entries were subject to a 2004 antidumping (AD) order and cash deposits at 26.49% were collected.
- Commerce initiated an administrative review for the Dec. 1, 2005–Nov. 30, 2006 period and later issued final review results assigning Qingdao Taifa a 383.60% margin (later amended to 145.90%).
- Qingdao Taifa sued to challenge the administrative review results and obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of affected entries (including American Power Pull’s) pending judicial review.
- After remands and appeals, Commerce’s amended final results (145.90%) were sustained; the preliminary injunction dissolved and Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate at the court‑affirmed rate.
- Customs liquidated American Power Pull’s entries on August 10, 2012 at 145.90%; Plaintiff protested claiming the entries had been deemed liquidated at the original cash deposit rates under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b).
- The Court (CIT) dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1581(i) claim (conceded) and, on cross‑motions, granted the government summary judgment: liquidation was properly suspended and, after injunction dissolution, timely liquidated within the six‑month assessment window.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entries were "deemed liquidated" under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b) at the cash‑deposit rate | American Power Pull: Customs never had a valid basis to suspend liquidation; absent suspension, entries deemed liquidated after four years at deposit rates | U.S.: Liquidation was lawfully suspended by the AD order, by the administrative review, and by the court injunction; liquidation occurred timely after injunction dissolved | Held for U.S.: suspension valid; liquidation at amended rate within six‑month window was proper |
| Whether suspension can be effected by administrative review and court injunction | Plaintiff: no statutory basis for suspension when a valid AD order already existed at entry; review did not authorize suspension absent an "affirmative" determination | U.S.: Statute and precedent require suspension during administrative review and permit injunction to continue suspension during judicial review | Held for U.S.: statutory scheme supports suspension during review and by injunction |
| Timing for Customs to liquidate after lifting suspension | Plaintiff: liquidation should have occurred earlier or been deemed liquidated at deposit rate | U.S.: After injunction dissolved, Customs had six months under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) to liquidate; it did so within that period | Held for U.S.: Customs timely liquidated within six months after final court decision |
| Proper remedy/procedure for assessing post‑review duties | Plaintiff: assessment at lower original deposit rate required by § 1504(b) | U.S.: Assessment follows Commerce’s amended final results and court judgment; entries to be liquidated accordingly | Held for U.S.: assessment at court‑affirmed rate was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment genuine‑issue standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (rejecting clearly contradicted factual narratives on summary judgment)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (timing of liquidation and deemed liquidation principles)
- Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (final results publication as notice to Customs to lift suspension)
- Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560 (suspension during review implied by statutory scheme)
- Koyo Corp. v. United States, 497 F.3d 1231 (suspension of liquidation during administrative review explained)
- SSAB N. Am. Div. v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Protection, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (CIT) (liability accrues at entry; retrospective assessment system)