474 F.Supp.3d 1332
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- Plaintiffs Transpacific Steel LLC, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc., and The Jordan International Company challenged Proclamation 9772, which imposed a 50% Section 232 tariff on certain steel imports from Turkey.
- In Transpacific II the Court held the President exceeded statutory authority and violated plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights, and ordered CBP to refund the difference between tariffs collected under Proclamation 9772 and the 25% ad valorem tariff.
- The United States appealed and moved to stay enforcement of the district court’s judgment pending appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- Plaintiffs opposed the stay and moved to enforce the judgment by requiring a government status report and timeline for refunds.
- The court denied the government’s stay motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, but sua sponte enjoined liquidation of any subject entries pending final and conclusive disposition of the case, including appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal | Oppose stay; judgment should be enforced so refunds proceed | Stay needed to prevent liquidation and potential difficulty recouping refunds if government prevails on appeal | Denied — gov’t failed to show likelihood of success; harms balance favors plaintiffs; no automatic right to stay |
| Whether USCIT Rule 62(d)/(e) gives the government an automatic stay without bond | Rule does not create automatic stay; court discretion required | Government contends Rule 62(d)/(e) supports a stay without bond for the United States | Denied — court rejects claim of an automatic stay; Rule 62(d)/(e) do not mandate one |
| Whether court should supervise refunds (order status report/timeline; enforce judgment) | Request court supervision and biweekly status reports to expedite refunds | Government says it is implementing the judgment and will comply; supervision unnecessary | Denied — plaintiffs showed no noncompliance or need for court supervision at this time |
| Whether entries should be prevented from liquidating while appeal is pending | Plaintiffs concerned liquidation would frustrate relief | Government worried entries could liquidate and complicate recoupment | Court acted sua sponte and enjoined liquidation of subject entries pending final disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal is discretionary and not a matter of right; stay factors govern)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (four-factor test for issuing stays and injunctive relief)
- United States v. Hanover Ins. Co., 82 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (courts may enjoin actions to protect the effect of their judgments)
- B.F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 713 (1994) (CIT’s inherent authority to enforce its judgments)
- GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (2015) (standard for motions to enforce judgments)