Canadian Wheat Board v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7986
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- NAFTA binational panel invalidated the Commission's injury finding supporting the antidumping order and Commerce revoked the order.
- Deposited antidumping duties on Canadian wheat were still suspended but unliquidated at the time of revocation.
- Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate pre-Revocation entries at the rate in effect at entry and to cease future deposits.
- Canadian Wheat Board filed suit in the Court of International Trade seeking return of deposited duties and to enjoin liquidation of unliquidated entries.
- Trade Court granted preliminary relief and then summary judgment for return of deposits, directing liquidation without regard to the antidumping duties and refund of pre-2006 deposits.
- The Government challenged jurisdiction and argued for deference to Commerce; the court rejected the retroactive relief rationale and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Commerce retain unliquidated deposits after NAFTA panel invalidation? | Canadians seek return of unliquidated deposits; retention is improper. | Government contends retention is permissible under the statute and NAFTA framework. | No; deposits must be returned. |
| Is the suit properly brought against Commerce rather than the NAFTA panel? | Action challenges Commerce's implementation, not the NAFTA panel decision. | Action falls within review of NAFTA procedures. | Properly brought against Commerce; not a direct challenge to the panel. |
| Did the Trade Court have jurisdiction to entertain the action? | Trade Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) for actions against administration/enforcement of duties. | Norcal/Crosetti-like limitations block 1581(i) where other sections might apply. | Trade Court had jurisdiction; it could address the conduct of liquidation and deposits. |
| Does retroactive relief bar recovery of deposits under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(5) and related provisions? | Relief would be prospective and consistent with NAFTA panel. | Relief could be retroactive and barred by statute. | Returning deposits is not retroactive relief; it effectuates the NAFTA panel decision. |
| Should Commerce's interpretation receive deference? | Deference due to agency interpretation. | No deference due for unexplained justification. | No deference; Commerce's failure to provide a reasoned explanation undermines its position. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 569 (Ct.Cl. 1956) (unlawful order taints related tariffs; invalid orders cannot justify payments)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1988) (agency cannot justify actions with post hoc rationales)
- Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (jurisdictional limits under 1581; interplay with other provisions)
- Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 400 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (requireed reasoned analysis for agency interpretations)
- Association Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 916 F.2d 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1990) (tariffs and duties cannot be retained when underlying order invalid)
- Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (NAFTA/1250 provisions and foreign-depositor rights under enforcement)
- Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (antidumping duties are to protect domestic market; liquidation directions matter)