Case Information
*1 Before R EYNA C LEVENGER , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges. W ALLACH , Circuit Judge .
This appeal concerns certain entries of merchandise imported by Appellant Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. (“Hutchison”) and subsequent actions taken on those entries by the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). The United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissed Hutchison’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that because Hutchison could have pursued a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012), it could not invoke jurisdiction pursuant to § 1581(i)(4). See Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United States , 71 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1379 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015). We affirm.
B ACKGROUND In 2007, Hutchison imported wooden bedroom furni- ture from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). The merchandise was exported by Orient International Hold- ing Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (“Orient Interna- tional”).
Commerce subsequently conducted an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China that examined Orient Internation- al’s exports. [1] In the review’s final results, Commerce assigned an antidumping duty margin of 216.01% to Orient International’s exports. Wooden Bedroom Furni- ture from the People’s Republic of China , 74 Fed. Reg. 41,374, 41,380 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 17, 2009) (“Final Results”).
Orient International initiated an action in the CIT challenging various aspects of the Final Results. The CIT enjoined Commerce from instructing Customs to liquidate the subject entries [2] and directed “that the entries subject to this injunction shall be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision in this action, including all ap- peals, as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e).” J.A. 19.
On February 5, 2013, the CIT sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination pertaining to the Final Results, including its selection of a new rate of 83.55%. Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States , 896 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1299 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013). Orient International did not ap- quotation marks and citation omitted). “At the conclusion of a[n] . . . antidumping duty investigation, assuming the requisite findings are made [by Commerce and the United States International Trade Commission], Commerce may issue orders imposing duties on imports of goods covered by the investigation.” Fedmet Res. Corp. v. United States , 755 F.3d 912, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Upon request, Com- merce may conduct an administrative review of an anti- dumping duty order to determine the dumping margin for entries of subject merchandise made during a twelve month period. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1) (2012).
[2] At the conclusion of an administrative review, Commerce issues instructions to Customs that reflect the amount of dumping duties to be assessed when Customs liquidates the subject entries. 19 C.F.R. § 351.221(b)(6) (2015); see also 19 C.F.R. § 159.1 (“Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries.”).
peal the CIT’s decision. On June 13, 2013, the CIT or- dered that “all entries exported by [Orient International] . . . be liquidated without delay in accordance with this [c]ourt’s February 5, 2013 [F]inal [J]udgment.” J.A. 1045. Commerce then issued instructions to Customs to liqui- date Orient International’s exports of subject merchandise at Commerce’s redetermined rate of 83.55%. J.A. 39. In September 2013, Customs liquidated the entries at this rate.
Hutchison then filed a protest with Customs pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514, [3] J.A. 1027, asserting that its entries were outside the scope of the antidumping duty order, J.A. 1030. Customs denied the protest. J.A. 1027.
In October 2014, Hutchison sought review of the liq- uidation of its entries before the CIT, invoking jurisdic- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4). J.A. 1002. Specifically, Count I of Hutchison’s Complaint asserted that the sub- ject entries should not have been liquidated at the rate provided in Commerce’s instructions (i.e., 83.55%), but rather should have been deemed liquidated at the rate at which they entered (i.e., 7.24%) pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). J.A. 1004, 1014–15. Section 1504(d) provides that “[w]hen a suspension required by statute or court order is removed, [Customs] shall liquidate the entry . . . within [six] months after receiving notice of the removal from [Commerce], other agency, or a court with jurisdic- tion over the entry,” and that if the entry is not liquidat- ed within six months, the entry “shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quanti- ty, and amount of duty asserted by the importer of record” at the time of entry (“deemed liquidation”). 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Hutchison included no other count in its Com- plaint.
In its Prayer for Relief, however, Hutchison argued that Commerce’s liquidation instructions were arbitrary and capricious because they misidentified “the date on which suspension of liquidation was lifted.” J.A. 1015. Commerce’s instructions provided that notice of removal of the suspension occurred on June 13, 2013, the date that the CIT amended the injunction governing Orient Inter- national’s exports. J.A. 37–38. Hutchison claimed that the suspension of the liquidation under the CIT’s injunc- tion expired when the CIT entered Final Judgment on February 5, 2013. J.A. 1013. Accordingly, Hutchison sought a declaratory judgment that its entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law in August 2013, approximately six months after the CIT’s February 5, 2013 Final Judgment. J.A. 1002, 1015–16 (referencing 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)).
The CIT dismissed Hutchison’s Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The CIT found that the “true
nature of [Hutchison’s] claim involves a protestable
[Customs] decision regarding liquidation and/or deemed
liquidation.”
Hutchison
,
Hutchison appeals the CIT’s dismissal. We have ju- risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
D ISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
We review the CIT’s “decision to grant the Govern-
ment’s motion to dismiss [for lack of subject matter juris-
diction]
de novo
as a question of law.”
Juice Farms, Inc. v.
United States
,
II. The CIT Properly Held that it Lacked Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Over Hutchison’s Complaint
Chapter 95 of Title 28 of the United States Code con-
tains Congress’s jurisdictional grant to the CIT. The first
section, § 1581, is titled “Civil actions against the United
States and agencies and officers thereof” and consists of
subsections (a) through (j). 28 U.S.C. § 1581. “Each
[§] 1581 subsection delineates particular laws over which
the [CIT] may assert jurisdiction.”
Nat’l Corn Growers
Ass’n v. Baker
,
The CIT held that Hutchison could have sought judi- cial review pursuant to § 1581(a) and therefore could not invoke the CIT’s jurisdiction under § 1581(i)(4). Hutchison , 71 F. Supp. 3d at 1379. Section 1581(a) pro- vides the CIT with “exclusive jurisdiction [over] any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest” by Customs. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Protestable decisions include “the liquidation . . . of an entry . . . pursuant to . . . [19 U.S.C. § 1504].” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5). Section 1581(i) provides the CIT with residual jurisdiction over civil actions that arise from import transactions. See Conoco, Inc. v. U.S. Foreign–Trade Zones Bd. , 18 F.3d 1581, 1588 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In particular, subsection (i) provides the CIT with
exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action com- menced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the Unit- ed States providing for–
(1) revenue from imports or tonnage; (2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue; (3) embargoes or other quantitative re- strictions on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the protection of the public health or safety; or (4) administration and enforcement with re- spect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)–(3) of this subsection and subsections (a)– (h) of this section.
28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). “[T]o prevent circumvention of the
administrative processes crafted by Congress [in other
subsections of § 1581],” we have held that “jurisdiction
under subsection 1581(i) may not be invoked if jurisdic-
tion under another subsection of section 1581 is or could
have been available, unless the other subsection is shown
to be manifestly inadequate.”
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
United States
,
We look to the “true nature of the action” in determin-
ing whether the CIT properly found jurisdiction lacking.
Id
. at 1293 (citation omitted). The true nature of a par-
ticular action will depend upon the attendant facts as-
serted in the pleadings.
See Norsk
, 472 F.3d at 1355;
Williams v. Sec’y of Navy
,
A. The True Nature of Hutchison’s Complaint Concerns a
Protestable Customs Decision Hutchison argues that “[t]he CIT erred in dismissing [its claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) because the CIT erred in determining the true nature of its action. Hutchison’s Br. 19. Hutchison asserts that, in holding that its “sole avenue for raising its claim was to protest [Customs]’s allegedly untimely liquidation of its entries, and to bring suit under [the CIT’s] 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) ‘protest’ jurisdiction,” the CIT “overlook[ed] the fact that the decision which Hutchison challenges” was made by Commerce as opposed to Customs. Id. According to Hutchison, “[a] protest against the assessment of antidumping duties [under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)] can only be brought . . . where the error results from a decision by [Customs], and not in those cases where [Customs] is merely carrying out its ministe- rial tasks of enforcing and applying Commerce decisions and instructions.” Id . (citations omitted). We disagree.
The true nature of Hutchison’s action is a challenge to Customs’s September 2013 liquidation of its entries. What Hutchison ultimately seeks is the liquidation of its entries at the rate its merchandise entered (i.e., 7.24%) because, according to Hutchison, the entries should have been deemed liquidated in August 2013, one month before Customs actually liquidated the entries at the 83.55% rate provided in Commerce’s instructions. J.A. 1002, 1014–15. A deemed liquidation is a protestable event that falls squarely within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). See Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States , 283 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (An importer challenging liquidation can “invoke[] the jurisdiction of the [CIT] under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) if, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5),” which cross-references the deemed liquidation provision of 19 U.S.C. § 1504, the importer “timely protest[s] the liquida- tions.”); see also Cemex, S.A. v. United States , 384 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“While we agree that Cus- toms’[s] role in making antidumping decisions, i.e. , in calculating antidumping duties, is generally ministerial, Customs here made a decision regarding liquidation ,” which may be protested under § 1514(a). (footnote omit- ted)).
Hutchison’s contention that the true nature of its ac- tion focuses on Commerce’s instructions belies the terms of its Complaint. Hutchison included only one count in its Complaint, and that count speaks only to deemed liquida- tion, an action committed solely to Customs. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1500(c)–(d), 1504(d). Had Hutchison intended its action to concern Commerce’s liquidation instructions, we suspect it would have included an additional count with the relevant allegations and legal authority.
Our decision in
Fujitsu
confirms that the true nature
of Hutchison’s appeal concerns Customs’s liquidation of
its entries. In
Fujitsu
, the appellant argued that “
Cus-
toms
had improperly failed to liquidate the entries within
six months of having received notice that the injunction
against liquidation had been removed.”
Hutchison’s Complaint attempts to distinguish its ap-
peal from
Fujitsu
by emphasizing the facts related to
Commerce’s June 25, 2013 instructions to Customs. J.A.
1013–15. Indeed, Hutchison attempts to attribute a
Customs decision (i.e., whether to treat certain entries as
deemed liquidated) to Commerce.
See
J.A. 1013–15;
see
also
19 U.S.C. §§ 1500(c)–(d), 1504(d) (providing Customs
with the authority to deem entries liquidated). Although
the facts in the instant appeal and
Fujitsu
are different,
Hutchison’s recasting of the liquidation of its entries as a
Commerce error obscures the true nature of its action.
See Hartford Fire
,
Accordingly, we agree with the CIT that Hutchison “is
challenging a decision by [Customs] as to the appropriate
time for liquidation,” that this “decision would have been
protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5),” and any denial
of the protest would have been reviewable under 28
U.S.C. § 1581(a).
[4]
Hutchison
,
Not Manifestly Inadequate
“[J]urisdiction under subsection 1581(i) may not be
invoked if jurisdiction under another subsection of section
1581 is or could have been available, unless the other
subsection is shown to be manifestly inadequate.”
Hart-
ford Fire
, 544 F.3d at 1292 (citation omitted). “To be
manifestly inadequate, the protest must be an exercise in
futility”—i.e., “incapable of producing any result.”
Id.
at
1294 (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citation
omitted). Although Hutchison alleges it “mistakenly
filed” a protest that Customs denied, Hutchison’s Br. 21
n.9, it nonetheless contends that any challenge to Cus-
toms’s liquidation of its entries would have been “mani-
festly [inadequate because its claim] could not have been
raised by protest and [therefore] by an action brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a),”
id
. at 21 (footnote omitted).
Specifically, Hutchison asserts that “a protest cannot be
filed with [Customs] to challenge a decision by another
federal agency, [such as Commerce,] in circumstances
Judgment as the starting point. Hutchison’s Br. 30.
However, that argument ignores
Fujitsu
, which held that
a final judgment does not take effect immediately, but
only after the time for further appeal expires, or the
mandate in any appeal therefrom issues and the time to
file a petition for certiorari expires.
See, e.g.
,
Fujitsu
, 283
F.3d at 1379. Thus, because the relief sought in
Hutchison’s Complaint rests on a faulty legal premise, its
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief that the CIT
could grant. To the extent Hutchison asks us to reconsid-
er
Fujitsu
,
see
Hutchison’s Br. 31, we may not,
see Deckers
Corp. v. United States
,
where [Customs’s] role in relation to that decision is ministerial.” Id.
We have held that an importer “seeking to use [a
deemed liquidation] claim as a sword in a refund action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)” may not invoke jurisdiction
under § 1581(i)(4) if the importer “
could have
timely
protested Customs’[s] purported liquidations under 19
U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5).”
Fujitsu
, 283 F.3d at 1375–76 (em-
phasis added). Indeed, when Customs makes a decision
to liquidate, that decision is “[m]ore than passive or
ministerial” and “constitute[s] a ‘decision’ within the
context of section 1514(a).”
Cemex
,
A party filing a protest is required to “set forth dis-
tinctly and specifically . . . the nature of each objection
and the reasons therefor.” 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1)(C). In
its protest, Hutchison asserted that its entries were
outside the scope of the antidumping duty order.
[5]
J.A.
1030. It did not allege that the entries were or should
have been deemed liquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(d), as it does in its Complaint. While Hutchison
could have raised its deemed liquidation argument at any
time before Customs denied its protest,
see
19 U.S.C.
§ 1514(c)(1), its failure to do so means the CIT was unable
to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 1581(a).
See Fujitsu
,
C ONCLUSION We have considered Hutchison’s remaining argu- ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Court of International Trade is
AFFIRMED
Notes
[1] “Commerce imposes duties on imported merchan- dise that is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value . . . .” U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States , 621 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (in- ternal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Sales at less than fair value are those sales for which the normal value (the price a producer charges in its home market) exceeds the export price (the price of the product in the United States) or constructed export price.” Id. (internal
[3] A party may protest “any clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence . . . adverse to the importer[] in any entry, liquidation, or reliquidation” made by Customs in certain decisions. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (listing protesta- ble decisions).
[4] Even
if we regarded the true nature of
Hutchison’s appeal to concern Commerce’s liquidation
instructions, such that the CIT possessed jurisdiction
under § 1581(i)(4), Hutchison fails to assert a claim for
which relief could be granted because it has not based its
claim for relief on a plausible legal theory.
See, e.g.
,
Fifth
Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
,
[5] In this respect, Hutchison’s protest sought relief from the wrong Federal agency. Commerce, not Customs, determines whether a particular product falls within the scope of an antidumping duty order. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a).