392 F. Supp. 3d 1317
Ct. Int'l Trade2019Background
- Aspects Furniture International (AFI) imported wooden bedroom furniture from China and made ten entries in 2014; Commerce issued final results in April 2016 assigning a PRC-wide antidumping rate.
- CBP liquidated nine entries on November 24, 2017 and one on December 1, 2017; AFI filed two protests in April 2018 challenging liquidation and interest assessments.
- The 1st Subject Protest explicitly named one "lead" entry in the narrative but, using CBP's ACE system, listed eight additional entry numbers (the "Contested Entries") with entry and liquidation dates as an attachment.
- CBP denied AFI's protests on May 10, 2018 without addressing AFI's timeliness challenge; AFI sued in the CIT challenging the protest denials.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to the eight Contested Entries, arguing the protest was insufficiently specific because the narrative addressed only the single lead entry.
- The CIT denied the Government's partial motion, holding that AFI validly protested the additional entries via the ACE attachment consistent with 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(b) and that the protest should be construed liberally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CIT has jurisdiction over the eight Contested Entries | AFI: The Contested Entries were properly included via the ACE "Add Additional Entry Numbers" attachment and meet § 174.13(b) requirements | U.S.: Protest narrative only mentioned one entry; specificity requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1514 requires each entry be addressed in the narrative or shown to be represented | Held: Jurisdiction exists; listing additional entries in ACE attachment satisfied protest requirements and the protest construed liberally |
| Whether the protest met the specificity requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(a) | AFI: The narrative grounds applied to all entries; attachment supplied entry numbers, dates of entry and liquidation as required | U.S.: Attachment alone is insufficient; failure to tie narrative expressly to other entries renders protest invalid for those entries | Held: Protest was sufficiently specific as a whole; requiring the narrative to repeat every entry would render § 174.13(b) meaningless |
| Proper interpretation of 19 C.F.R. § 174.13(b) on multi-entry protests | AFI: Regulation contemplates a lead entry with attachments listing additional entries; ACE procedures follow CBP guidance | U.S.: Importer must meet § 1514 specificity for all entries, narrative must explicitly indicate representative nature | Held: Court rejects Government's narrow reading; attachment linkage is adequate and CBP guidance supports AFI's method |
| Whether agency deference (Auer) supports Government’s interpretation | AFI: Not applicable; CBP guidance and practice support AFI | U.S.: Argues regulatory interpretation favors dismissing contested entries | Held: Auer deference not warranted; Government's litigation position is not CBP's "fair and considered" interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation v. United States, 672 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (court may consider extrinsic evidence when jurisdictional facts are disputed)
- Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (protests construed liberally; must at least indicate basis for challenge)
- Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (protest validity governed by § 1514 and implementing regulations)
- Mattel, Inc. v. United States, 377 F. Supp. 955 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1974) (liberal posture toward protest sufficiency; objective test)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to agency interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) (limits on Auer deference)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (agency positions adopted purely for litigation not binding)