United States v. Univar USA, Inc.
195 F. Supp. 3d 1312
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Univar USA imported 36 entries of saccharin declared as originating in Taiwan from 2007–2012 after antidumping duties were imposed on PRC saccharin; CBP investigated alleged transshipment from China through Taiwan.
- CBP's investigation found Lung Huang (Univar's Taiwan supplier) was not licensed to manufacture saccharin, HTC was the only licensed Taiwanese producer and made limited sales to Lung Huang in 2005, and certain Lung Huang addresses appeared nonindustrial.
- CBP issued pre-penalty and penalty notices (2014–2015) asserting violations under 19 U.S.C. § 1592; Univar petitioned administratively and CBP issued a final decision in June 2015.
- The United States sued in the Court of International Trade to recover unpaid antidumping duties and penalties; parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment: Univar as to 23 entries before March 2010, the U.S. as to 13 entries on/after March 2010.
- Discovery was ongoing (letters rogatory to Taiwan, pending certified Taiwanese records, depositions), and parties disputed admissibility and sufficiency of Taiwanese customs data and investigator affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government is limited to evidence disclosed in CBP penalty notices | The court's de novo review permits the government to introduce new evidence supporting the same culpability level alleged in the penalty notice | Government must be confined to the material facts/evidence in the administrative penalty notice | The court: Government may introduce additional evidence in litigation so long as it does not assert a new culpability level not alleged administratively. |
| Whether Univar is entitled to partial SJ for 23 entries pre-March 2010 (no negligence/gross negligence) | Taiwanese customs data and other investigatory evidence create triable issues on transshipment and origin | CBP's Taiwanese data only covers post-March 2010 imports; no evidence of transshipment pre-March 2010 | Denied: discovery is ongoing, material facts disputed, and government submitted a Rule 56(d) showing. |
| Whether U.S. is entitled to partial SJ for 13 entries on/after March 2010 (liability, duties, interest) | Taiwanese customs data, producer licensing facts, and CBP findings establish Chinese origin and Univar's negligence | Evidence is inadmissible hearsay, uncorrelated by weight/mesh/date; material disputes remain | Denied: plaintiff failed to carry summary judgment burden; discovery and evidentiary disputes remain. |
| Motions for leave to file supplemental briefs by Univar | N/A (Univar sought to supplement) | N/A | Denied as moot in light of denial of both partial SJ motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue and evidence view at summary judgment)
- United States v. Nitek Electronics, 806 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.) (government cannot litigate a culpability level not alleged administratively)
- United States v. Optrex America, Inc., 29 CIT 1494 (Court of Int’l Trade) (de novo review limited to claims/culpability alleged)
- Exigent Tech. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 442 F.3d 1301 (discussing Rule 56(d) and dilatory discovery practices)
- United States v. ITT Indus., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (procedural posture for §1592 penalty review)