Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int'l Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, 665 F.Supp.3d 1347

Commerce’s July 5, 2019 Final Results in the countervailing-duty (CVD) expedited review of certain softwood lumber from Canada calculated de minimis rates for D&G, MLI, Lemay, and NAFP and stated CBP should discontinue suspension of liquidation and refund deposits for their shipments.
The Final Results and the regulatory basis (19 C.F.R. § 351.214(k)) spawned multi‑stage litigation in this Court and the Federal Circuit, producing decisions labeled Coalition I–V.
This Court (Coalition IV) had ordered Commerce to rescind the Final Results, reinstate the excluded companies in the CVD Order prospectively, and impose cash‑deposit requirements effective August 28, 2021; Commerce issued a Timken notice implementing that relief.
The Federal Circuit reversed that judgment in Coalition V, finding statutory authority for § 351.214(k), leaving the parties and Commerce in dispute over the practical effect of that reversal.
Movants (the excluded Canadian companies) moved under CIT Rule 60(b)(5) for relief from this Court’s judgment so Commerce will reinstate the movants’ exclusion from the CVD Order; the Government does not oppose the motion, the Coalition opposes.
The Court granted the motion, directing Commerce to issue a Timken‑like notice excluding Lemay, MLI, D&G, and NAFP from the CVD Order and instruct CBP to discontinue suspension, discontinue collection of cash deposits, and liquidate affected entries as of August 28, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(5)’s second clause (judgment based on earlier reversed judgment) permits relief	Coalition: movants cannot show the Court’s judgment is based on an earlier judgment that was reversed	Movants: the Court’s prior orders directing reinstatement were effectively undermined by the Federal Circuit reversal	Denied — second clause inapplicable; movants sought relief from the very judgment that the Federal Circuit reversed, not from a later judgment predicated on a separate earlier judgment
Whether Rule 60(b)(5)’s third clause (prospective enforcement no longer equitable) permits relief	Coalition: movants failed to show inequity from continued enforcement	Government: Federal Circuit reversal changed legal basis; continued enforcement would be inequitable; Commerce supports reinstatement of exclusion	Granted — changed legal and factual basis from Coalition V and Government’s consent render continued prospective enforcement inequitable; relief appropriate under Rule 60(b)(5)
Temporal scope of relief (effective date)	Coalition: (argued implicitly) relief should not be retroactive to earlier reinstatement date	Government: relief can be effectuated by notice and instructions; August 28, 2021 reinstatement date is appropriate	Granted — relief effective as of August 28, 2021 (the effective date of Commerce’s prior Timken notice) rather than only from the date of this opinion

Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (describing Rule 60(b)(5) relief for changed legal or factual circumstances)
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standards for modifying equitable decrees under changed circumstances)
Pirkl v. Wilkie, 906 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (clarifying second clause of Rule 60(b)(5) applies where a judgment is based on a prior judgment that was reversed)
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Oil Prods. Corp., 806 F.2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (denial of Rule 60(b) relief where change in law did not produce inequity)
Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (requirement and purpose of a Timken notice under § 1516a(c)(1))
Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) (discussion of Rule 60(b)(6) equitable powers)
Comm. Overseeing Action for Lumber Int’l Trade Investigations or Negots. v. United States, 66 F.4th 968 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Coalition V) (Federal Circuit reversal that changed the legal basis for this Court’s prior judgment)