GEO Specialty Chems., Inc. v. United States
2017 CIT 74
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- GEO Specialty Chemicals challenged Commerce’s Final Results of the 2014–2015 antidumping administrative review of Glycine from the PRC, asserting certain entries reported as Indian origin were actually Chinese and subject to the China antidumping order.
- The entries at issue had been liquidated between August 7, 2015 and March 25, 2016 without antidumping duties; there is no dispute they are liquidated.
- GEO alleged Commerce ignored evidence of fraud and failed to treat the Indian exporters as covered by the China-wide order or anticircumvention findings.
- GEO brought the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) seeking review of the Final Results.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under USCIT R. 12(b)(1), arguing liquidation moots GEO’s challenge because there is no available relief under § 1581(c).
- The court asked questions of the parties, received responses, and found dismissal appropriate; the case was dismissed without prejudice to bringing other actions with a clear jurisdictional basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1581(c) review of the Final Results remains justiciable after liquidation of the entries | GEO: The review can yield more than changed deposit rates — it could produce findings that bring the Indian entries within the China order and thus produce permanent relief | U.S.: Liquidation of the entries renders § 1581(c) review moot because there is no relief to grant; deposit rates are not implicated | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; liquidation moots the § 1581(c) challenge |
| Whether exceptions to the liquidation-mootness rule apply | GEO: Seeks a more permanent remedy and findings of fraud; argues possible consequential relief | U.S.: Neither exception (effect on revocation nor violation of court injunction) applies here | Court: Neither exception applies; no effect on revocation and no injunction violation |
| Whether § 1581(i) provides jurisdiction because other remedies are inadequate | GEO: Suggests § 1581(i) might be available if § 1581(c) fails | U.S.: GEO did not plead § 1581(i); other remedies exist (Customs enforcement under 19 U.S.C. § 1592; CBP evasion procedures) | Court: § 1581(i) not invoked; cannot assume § 1581(i) jurisdiction where statutory remedies appear available; dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether judicial findings of fraud would produce actionable relief by Customs | GEO: Wants findings Commerce ignored so Customs can act under § 1592 | U.S.: Customs can act independently; judicial findings in this review would be ineffective given liquidation | Court: Findings in this action would not change the review’s outcome or create relief; GEO may pursue Customs/§ 1592 or CBP evasion procedures separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (liquidation of entries generally moots challenges to periodic administrative review)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 512 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming that liquidation moots review challenges absent narrow exceptions)
- Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. United States, 519 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (exception where a rate determination affects a revocation decision)
- Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (exception where liquidation violated a court-ordered injunction)
- Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (§ 1581(i) may not be invoked if another subsection provides a potentially adequate remedy)