Jinxiang Huameng Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 57
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce initiated a new-shipper antidumping review for Jinxiang Huameng (Plaintiff) covering one U.S. entry of fresh garlic for Nov. 1, 2014–Apr. 30, 2015; liquidation of that entry was suspended when the review began.
- During a concurrent administrative review covering a broader period, Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate entries for firms not included in the administrative-review requests and to continue suspensions only for firms in the administrative review; those instructions did not reference Plaintiff’s pending new-shipper review.
- Customs liquidated Plaintiff’s single entry on March 11, 2016 at the PRC‑wide rate (the cash-deposit rate in effect at entry), apparently following Commerce’s administrative-review instructions; Commerce nonetheless proceeded and issued final rescission of the new-shipper review on Oct. 25, 2016.
- Plaintiff filed suit challenging Commerce’s new-shipper final results under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and later sought leave to amend to add three additional claims: (1) challenge to Customs’ liquidation under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i); (2) challenge to Commerce’s liquidation instructions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i); and (3) an equitable request for reliquidation under 28 U.S.C. § 1585 to avoid harm to the importer of record.
- The government opposed amendment as futile for lack of jurisdiction. The court considered whether the proposed § 1581(i) claims were permissible and whether § 1585 provided independent jurisdiction or standing for the equitable reliquidation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Plaintiff add a § 1581(i) claim challenging Customs’ liquidation of the entry? | Plaintiff says it may bring a § 1581(i) challenge because it (an exporter) could not file the statutory Customs protest and thus § 1581(a) was unavailable. | Defendant contends jurisdiction is lacking because the liquidation could have been challenged under § 1581(a) via protest. | Court: Grant. Plaintiff could not have filed a protest (not the importer/consignee/etc.), so § 1581(i) is a proper residual jurisdictional basis and amendment is not futile. |
| Can Plaintiff add a § 1581(i) claim challenging Commerce’s liquidation instructions issued during the administrative review? | Plaintiff contends § 1581(i)(4) permits challenge to Commerce’s instructions because it could not protest liquidation and had no § 1581(a) remedy. | Defendant argues § 1581(i) is inappropriate because the liquidation could have been protested by the importer. | Court: Grant. Because Plaintiff (exporter) lacked protest rights, § 1581(i) is the available remedy to challenge Commerce’s instructions; amendment not futile. |
| Can Plaintiff add a claim under § 1585 seeking equitable reliquidation to avoid injury to the importer of record? | Plaintiff asks the court to exercise equitable powers under § 1585 to order reliquidation to prevent substantial harm to the importer. | Defendant argues § 1585 does not provide independent jurisdiction and Plaintiff lacks standing to assert a third party’s injury. | Court: Deny. § 1585 does not create jurisdiction; Plaintiff lacks standing to press a claim to protect a third party importer, so amendment would be futile. |
| Timeliness of new § 1581(i) claims (statute of limitations)? | Plaintiff timely filed within two‑year limitations. | Defendant did not prevail on a timeliness bar. | Court: Implicitly hold timely: claims fall within 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i) two‑year period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for granting leave to amend).
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (leave to amend lies in court’s discretion).
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (court of limited jurisdiction; presumption against jurisdiction).
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.) (residual § 1581(i) limited where other § 1581 remedies exist and are adequate).
- Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir.) (challenges to Commerce liquidation instructions may be brought under § 1581(i)).
- Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir.) (similar principle on jurisdiction to review Commerce instructions).
- Star Sales & Distributing Corp. v. United States, 663 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Mass.) (section 1585 does not create independent jurisdiction)