469 F.Supp.3d 1359
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- Plaintiff Aspects Furniture imported wooden bedroom furniture from China and made ten entries in 2014 that were subject to an antidumping suspension.
- Commerce published final results on April 11, 2016, lifting the suspension; CBP later posted Message No. 7150306 (May 30, 2017) informing ports that the suspension had been lifted.
- CBP liquidated nine entries on November 24, 2017 and one entry on December 1, 2017; AFI protested and CBP denied the protests on May 10, 2018.
- AFI filed suit (Oct. 27, 2018) challenging denial of the protests; the Government moved for judgment on the pleadings and AFI cross-moved; discovery was stayed.
- After a related CIT memorandum (IMSS) and briefing on the pleadings, AFI moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (June 2020) narrowing theories to focus on whether Message No. 7150306 (or some earlier notice) triggered the six‑month deemed‑liquidation period.
- The Court granted AFI leave to amend, finding good cause and excusable neglect, and concluded the proposed amendment was not futile; the Government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and AFI’s cross‑motion were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFI should be allowed to file a first amended complaint | AFI: amendment is timely after IMSS, narrows issues, no prejudice, excusable neglect | Gov: undue delay, speculative fishing expedition, futility | Granted — court found good cause, excusable neglect, no undue prejudice, and amendment not futile |
| Whether Message No. 7150306 constituted public, unambiguous notice triggering the 6‑month deemed‑liquidation period | AFI: message was publicly accessible but does not show source/date; CBP may have received notice earlier | Gov: the public message date controls (May 30, 2017) | Not finally decided — court allowed pleading and discovery to test when CBP actually received notice |
| Whether a non‑public communication (to CBP) that is later made public can start the 6‑month period | AFI: yes, possible if the non‑public notice is later made public or forms basis for public notice | Gov: non‑public notice cannot trigger the statutory period | Court: Cemex/FYH do not foreclose that possibility; factual development may show an earlier effective date |
| Whether CBP validly reliquidated entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1501, defeating deemed‑liquidation claims | AFI: pre‑TFEA §1501 governs (entries made 2014), so reliquidation time limits differ | Gov: reliquidation within 90 days was proper (relies on post‑TFEA §1501) | Court: Government’s reliance on post‑TFEA §1501 fails here; court declined to find amendment futile on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1314 (Federal Circuit 2004) (six‑month deemed‑liquidation period requires public, unambiguous notice)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Federal Circuit 2002) (publication date may govern when Federal Register notice is involved)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors for granting leave to amend a complaint)
- American Int’l Chem., Inc. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Del. 2005) (six‑month period begins when Customs receives notice)
- FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (D. Del. 2011) (Federal Register notice, not an email never made public, triggered deemed‑liquidation)
- United States v. Great American Ins. Co. of New York, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (CIT 2017) (amendments to §1501 in TFEA are not retroactive)