SPB USA LLC v. United States, 1:11-cv-00333

Consolidated action seeking a writ of mandamus to force Commerce to revoke antidumping orders, liquidate entries, and end liquidation suspension.
Plaintiffs are foreign exporters and domestic importers with entries subject to antidumping orders since July 11, 2005.
Commerce issued a revocation notice on July 15, 2011 and notices suspending liquidation, with Timken and Revocation notices governing suspension.
Plaintiffs contend Commerce did not properly administer remand determinations reflecting revocation and liquidation instructions.
Court addresses jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) and mandamus standards, referencing NSK decision in Slip Op. 11-124.
Court concludes mandamus should be denied in light of controlling authority on liquidation suspension and agency duties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has § 1581(i) jurisdiction over administration of final remand determinations.	Plaintiffs rely on § 1581(i)(4) for administration of final determinations.	Defendant argues this action challenges original Commission determinations and falls outside § 1581(i) except as to liquidation.	Jurisdiction exists under § 1581(i)(4).
Whether Commerce had a clear, non-discretionary duty to revoke the orders.	Commerce must revoke per § 1675(d)(2).	Revocation occurred; no clear duty to alter labeling or other post-revocation actions.	No clear duty shown beyond the revocation itself.
Whether Commerce must issue liquidation instructions for post-July 11, 2005 entries.	Remand determinations require liquidation instructions per revocation.	Liquidation suspended by operation of law until final court decision under 1516a(e).	Cannot order liquidation while suspension is mandatory by controlling statutes and notices.
Whether Customs had a non-discretionary duty to liquidate under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d).	Removal of suspension obligates liquidation within six months of notice.	Entries remain suspended until final court decision; § 1504(d) not triggered.	No mandamus relief on this basis due to legal suspension.
Whether Commerce had a duty to refund cash deposits with interest.	Refund deposits after negative determination.	No statutory/regulatory support for mandatory refund with interest.	No clear, non-discretionary duty established.

Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (§ 1581(i) jurisdiction for liquidation/administration challenges)
Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (§ 1581(i) jurisdiction even when not challenging initial determinations)
Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (CIT 2008) (Liquidation/suspension framework under § 1516a and related notices)
Timken v. United States, 893 F.3d 337 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Effect of Federal Register notice suspending liquidation pending final decision)
Hosiden Corp. v. United States, 85 F.3d 589 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (liquidation suspension principles and final decision timing)
Diamond Sawblades v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (liquidation and timeliness under final decision framework)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (mandamus standards and standing for jurisdictional inquiry)