Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, Solarworld Americas, Inc., 892 F.3d 1186

Background

Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders in 2012 on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and modules from the PRC; the orders included an express exclusion for "thin film photovoltaic products."
Sunpreme imported bifacial modules containing a crystalline silicon wafer substrate coated on both faces with amorphous silicon thin films; prior to 2015 Sunpreme entered these modules as ordinary imports without duties.
In 2015 Customs began treating Sunpreme’s entries as within the CSPV Orders, suspended liquidation, and required cash deposits; Sunpreme disputed Customs and provided testing/certification showing thin-film characteristics.
Sunpreme requested a Commerce scope ruling on November 16, 2015; Commerce formally initiated a scope inquiry on December 30, 2015. Before Commerce issued a scope ruling, Sunpreme filed suit in the Court of International Trade (CIT) in December 2015 seeking refunds and injunctive relief.
The CIT granted preliminary injunctive relief and later ruled for Sunpreme, finding Customs had exceeded its authority; Commerce subsequently (in 2016) issued a final scope determination finding Sunpreme’s products within the CSPV Orders.
On appeal the Federal Circuit addressed whether the CIT had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) given that a remedy under § 1581(c) (challenge to Commerce scope rulings) was available and Sunpreme had not exhausted the administrative scope-ruling process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CIT had jurisdiction under § 1581(i) to hear Sunpreme’s pre-scope-ruling suit	Sunpreme argued Customs acted ultra vires and § 1581(i) permits residual jurisdiction because immediate relief was necessary due to financial harm	Government and SolarWorld argued Sunpreme must exhaust Commerce’s scope-ruling process and then seek review under § 1581(c); § 1581(i) is unavailable when another remedy could have been used	Held that CIT lacked § 1581(i) jurisdiction because § 1581(c) was available and Sunpreme failed to exhaust administrative remedies; § 1581(i) may not be invoked when another subsection could apply and is not manifestly inadequate
Whether Customs’ actions were reviewable under § 1581(a) as a protestable misapplication	Sunpreme characterized Customs’ action as ultra vires and not a scope dispute, so § 1581(a) review was appropriate	Defendants noted the scope was disputed, so the decision was not a protestable, ministerial misapplication under § 1581(a)	Held that § 1581(a) did not apply because the scope was disputed and Customs’ decision was not a protestable ministerial misapplication
Whether delay or financial hardship made the administrative remedy manifestly inadequate	Sunpreme argued that paying duties caused irreparable financial harm making § 1581(c) inadequate	Defendants argued financial hardship and delay do not render the prescribed administrative track manifestly inadequate	Held that allegations of financial harm or delay do not make the administrative remedy manifestly inadequate; exhaustion was required
Proper procedural path for disputes over scope of antidumping/countervailing orders	Sunpreme sought direct judicial relief before Commerce issued a scope ruling	Government maintained importers must seek a Commerce scope ruling first and then challenge adverse rulings under § 1581(c)	Held that importers must first seek a scope ruling from Commerce; subsequent judicial review is via § 1581(c) if necessary

Key Cases Cited

Xerox Corp. v. United States, 289 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir.) (scope questions are primarily for Commerce; unambiguous, undisputed orders allow § 1581(a) protest)
Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, 164 F.3d 596 (Fed. Cir.) (importers should first seek a Commerce scope ruling before judicial review)
Int’l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 1581(i) unavailable when another § 1581 remedy is or could have been available)
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 1581(i) is residual and cannot be invoked when other subsections apply unless manifestly inadequate)
Chemsol, LLC v. United States, 755 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (burden on party invoking § 1581(i) to show other remedies are manifestly inadequate)
JCM, Ltd. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (requiring claimants to follow the review path Congress prescribed)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (explaining futility standard for manifest inadequacy)
Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356 (Fed. Cir.) (Congressional remedial tracks are exclusive when prescribed)