KYD, Inc. v. United States
836 F. Supp. 2d 1410
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- KYD, Inc. challenges Commerce’s Second Final Remand Redetermination imposing a 94.62% AFA antidumping rate on KYD’s retailer bags from Thailand.
- KYD IV upheld the Second Remand results; KYD seeks reconsideration arguing an 8th Amendment excessive fines/forfeitures issue was not addressed.
- KYD argued the 94.62% AFA rate is punitive and not remedial, violating the 8th Amendment.
- The court analyzes exhaustion and waiver of the 8th Amendment issue due to KYD’s failure to raise it at the proper stage.
- Court applies standard for Rule 59 reconsideration: limited grounds, not a rerun of the case.
- Even if addressed, the court holds the 8th Amendment issue is foreclosed and the AFA rate is remedial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KYD exhausted administrative remedies on the 8th Amendment claim | KYD raised the issue during first remand proceedings. | KYD failed to raise it again during the second remand and in September 2011 comments. | Exhaustion required; KYD fails to exhaust. |
| Whether KYD waived the 8th Amendment claim | Issue preserved from first remand and raised later. | KYD did not raise the issue at the proper time following the second remand. | Issue waived; KYD did not timely raise. |
| Whether the 8th Amendment claim has merit given AFA practical purpose | AFA rate is punitive, not remedial. | AFA rates are remedial to deter non-compliance, not punitive. | Remedial, not punitive; 8th Amendment claim lacks merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA remedial, not punitive; supports preclusion of 8th Amendment issue)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (2011) (KYD III; confirms remedial nature of AFA rate)
- One Lot Emerald Cut Stones & One Ring v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972) (remedial nature of civil sanctions under customs statute)
- Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (2011) (waiver/claims not raised post-remand deemed waived)
- Ninestar Tech. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 667 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (significant questions exception to waiver)
- Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (significant questions of general impact need not excuse waiver)