Jinxiang Huameng Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 58
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jinxiang Huameng challenged Commerce’s final results in a new shipper review and related liquidation instructions; action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and § 1581(i).
- The administrative record involved a single entry that Commerce reviewed as a new shipper entry; Customs later liquidated that entry on March 11, 2016.
- Plaintiff amended its complaint to assert five § 1581(c) counts attacking Commerce’s new shipper determinations and two § 1581(i) counts attacking (1) Customs’ liquidation of the entry and (2) Commerce’s liquidation instructions in a concurrent administrative review.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the case is moot because liquidation of the sole entry eliminated any live controversy under § 1581(c).
- Plaintiff argued liquidation does not moot the suit because the court could set aside an unlawful liquidation, reinstate suspension of liquidation, and order corrective relief.
- The court considered whether meaningful relief remains available (i.e., vacatur of liquidation and ordering of proper liquidation) and whether that preserves a live case or controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction after Customs liquidated the sole entry | Plaintiff: liquidation does not moot the case because the court can set aside wrongful liquidation and reinstate suspension of liquidation | Defendant: liquidation moots the § 1581(c) challenge; no live controversy remains | Court: Jurisdiction exists; denial of dismissal because court can provide relief vacating wrongful liquidation and ordering proper liquidation |
| Whether a challenge to Commerce’s new shipper determination remains reviewable after liquidation | Plaintiff: the new shipper determination is reviewable and could affect relief (vacatur/instructions) | Defendant: liquidation renders the new shipper challenge academic | Court: New shipper challenge can yield meaningful relief tied to liquidation, so not moot |
| Whether claims under § 1581(i) alleging unlawful liquidation are viable | Plaintiff: § 1581(i) permits relief to correct wrongful liquidation | Defendant: (implicit) liquidation undercuts jurisdiction | Court: § 1581(i) provides a basis for relief to correct wrongful liquidation; case proceeds |
| Whether precedent requires dismissal when liquidation occurs | Plaintiff: precedent allows post-liquidation relief where liquidation was contrary to agency action | Defendant: relies on Zenith to argue liquidation moots review | Court: Distinguishing facts and citing authority that court may order relief for wrongful liquidation, so Zenith does not mandate dismissal here |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden to plead facts establishing it)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction)
- Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301 (1964) (Article III requires a live case or controversy)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (no jurisdiction when plaintiff lacks cognizable interest; doctrine of mootness)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (discusses effect of liquidation on jurisdiction in trade cases)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (when ruling on jurisdictional motion court draws all reasonable inferences for non-movant)
- Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (court may order relief to correct wrongful liquidation)
- Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the party invoking it)
- Rice Servs. Ltd. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (mootness in customs context)