Snap-on, Inc. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 157
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Commerce imposed a 374.15% "all others" CVD rate for Chinese aluminum extrusions in its April 2011 final CVD determination; entries by Snap‑on of GuPai merchandise were entered after that determination.
- Snap‑on did not participate in the underlying investigation or subsequent administrative reviews, did not deposit CVDs, and its entries were entered as Type 01 (not affirmatively deposited) and later became subject to liquidation.
- The MacLean‑Fogg litigation resulted in a recalculated "all others" CVD rate of 137.65%, and Commerce later amended its final CVD determination to reflect that reduced rate for entries on/after Dec. 10, 2012.
- Commerce instructed CBP to continue to collect/assess duties at the 374.15% cash‑deposit/assessment rate for entries made prior to the effective date of the amended determination; Snap‑on received a CBP Notice of Action assessing duties at 374.15% and sued.
- The key legal question was whether Snap‑on — a non‑participant in MacLean‑Fogg or the administrative reviews — is entitled retrospectively to the 137.65% rate for its prior entries.
- The court held Snap‑on waived any entitlement to the revised rate by failing to participate in the investigation or administrative review process and granted the United States summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Snap‑on is entitled to retrospective application of the 137.65% "all others" CVD rate set in MacLean‑Fogg IV for entries made before the amended determination's effective date | Snap‑on: MacLean‑Fogg IV invalidated the prior rate; its entries are "covered" and should be liquidated at 137.65% | U.S.: Snap‑on did not participate in MacLean‑Fogg or administrative reviews and has no statutory right to the review's rate for prior entries | Held: No — non‑participation waived any right; Commerce properly instructed liquidation at 374.15% for prior entries |
| Effect of suspension of liquidation in this case on entitlement to MacLean‑Fogg relief | Snap‑on: court suspension here preserves its right to the lower rate | U.S.: Suspension in this case does not make Snap‑on a party to MacLean‑Fogg or substitute for participation in the administrative process | Held: Suspension here does not confer retroactive entitlement; it does not cure Snap‑on’s failure to participate in the underlying litigation or reviews |
| Whether lack of participation in administrative review can be excused (exhaustion/futility) | Snap‑on: seeks relief under §1581(i) and relies on equitable considerations and precedent allowing relief in some circumstances | U.S.: Administrative review participation is the statutory route; Consol. Bearings and related authorities preclude relief for non‑participants absent special circumstances | Held: Administrative participation required; Snap‑on’s failure to participate bars entitlement to the review’s results |
| Equitable grounds / collateral estoppel to require Commerce to apply the lower rate to Snap‑on’s prior entries | Snap‑on: equity disfavors applying a rate known to be unlawful; asks Court to prevent assessment at 374.15% | U.S.: Granting retrospective relief to a non‑participant would reward free‑riding and undermine statutory review process; collateral estoppel inapplicable because issue not litigated as to Snap‑on | Held: Equity and collateral estoppel do not overcome statutory scheme; no retroactive relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- MacLean‑Fogg v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (CIT 2012) (recalculating and affirming the reduced all‑others CVD rate)
- Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 928 F. Supp. 1182 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996) (court judgment can require liquidation at revised rate for parties whose rights were adjudicated)
- Jilin Henghe Pharm. Co. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (non‑application of invalidated rate where party's rights had been adjudicated in prior litigation)
- Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (similar Laclede‑line reasoning applied re: NAFTA panel review)
- Shinyei Corp. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional recognition for APA challenges to liquidation instructions)
- Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (administrative review results apply only to entries covered by the review)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (discussing suspension of liquidation to preserve review rights)