The United States appeals from a decision of the United States Court of International Trade holding that the United States Customs Service (“Customs”) 1 did not liquidate a particular entry of goods within the statutorily allotted time, and that therefore, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), 2 the entry was deemed liquidated at the rate and amount of duty deposited by the importer. The government challenges the court’s ruling as to when the period for Customs to liquidate the entry began to run. It also challenges the court’s interpretation of section 1504(d). Because we reject the government’s arguments, we affirm the court’s decision.
BACKGROUND
I.
In March of 1994, International Trading Company (“ITC”) imported shop towels from a company in Bangladesh, Sonar Cotton Mills, Ltd. (“Sonar”). At the time of their entry into the United States, the towels were subject to an antidumping duty order that required a cash deposit of an antidumping duty computed at the rate of 2.72%. This resulted in ITC depositing an antidumping duty in the amount of $1962.48 with respect to the March 1994 entry. On April 14, 1995, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a notice in the Federal Register that it would conduct a third administrative review of the antidumping duty order, covering the period from March 1, 1994, to February 28, 1995. Initiation of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 Fed.Reg. 19,017 (Apr. 14, 1995). Final liquidation of the March 1994 entry was therefore suspended pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(d).
The final results of the third administrative review were published on October 30, 1996. Shop Towels from Bangladesh; Final Results of Administrative Review, 61 Fed.Reg. 55,957 (Oct. 30, 1996). The final results announced an antidumping duty rate of 27.31% for Sonar’s towels for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1995. On July 1, 1997, Commerce issued liquidation instructions to Customs by e-mail, informing Customs that suspension of liquidation was lifted and ordering Customs to liquidate entries subject to the administrative review.
On September 26, 1997, almost one year after publication of the final results, Customs liquidated ITC’s March 1994 shop towel entry at the rate determined in the third administrative review. This resulted in $17,779.92 in additional antidumping duty being owed with respect to the entry. ITC protested the liquidation, pointing to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Section 1504(d) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title,” when a suspension of liquidation is removed, Customs shall liquidate the entry, unless liquidation is extended, within six months after receiving notice of the removal from Commerce. The statute also provides that “[a]ny entry ... not liquidated by Customs within six months after receiving such notice shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record.”
Id.
ITC argued that the suspension of liquidation was removed
II.
On February 25, 2000, ITC filed suit in the Court of International Trade, seeking a refund of the $17,779.92 in additional antidumping duty it had paid with respect to the March 1994 entry of shop towels. Eventually moving for summary judgment, ITC contended that the March 1994 entry should have been deemed liquidated at the original deposit rate of 2.72% pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), because Customs had failed to liquidate the entry within the allotted six-month period. Cross-moving for summary judgment, the government argued that publication of the final results of an administrative review in the Federal Register does not constitute notice to Customs of the removal of a suspension of liquidation within the meaning of section 1504(d). It also argued that the proviso in the first sentence of section 1504(d), “[e]x-cept as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title,” means that if an entry is subject to section 1675(a)(3), it is not subject to the deemed liquidation mandate of section 1504(d). For these reasons, the government urged, the six-month time period for liquidating the March 1994 entry of shop towels did not begin until July 1, 1997, when Commerce issued liquidation instructions to Customs by e-mail.
Ruling on the motions for summary judgment, the Court of International Trade held that, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), the March 1994 entry was deemed liquidated at the 2.72% deposit rate because Customs had failed to liquidate the entry within the allotted six-month period.
Int’l Trading Co. v. United States,
The Court of International Trade noted that the case before it was similar in all material respects to the action that was the subject of our decision in
International Trading II,
except that the entry at issue in this case was made approximately one month after the last entry covered by
International Trading II. Summary Judgment Order,
Under § 1675(a)(3), an entry that is not liquidated by Customs within 90 days after the Commerce liquidation order confers the right upon the importer to demand an explanation from the Secretary of the Treasury. If the entry has still not been liquidated (or extended) six months after notice of removal of suspension (i.e. publication in the Federal Register), then § 1504(d) (1994) directs that liquidation be effected by operation of the law.
Summary Judgment Order,
The court consequently granted ITC’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the period for deemed liquidation pursuant to section 1504(d) was not triggered when Customs received e-mail liquidation instructions from Commerce on July 1, 1997, but rather, when the results of the third administrative review were published in the Federal Register on October 30, 1996. As a result, the court held, the March 1994 entry was deemed liquidated by operation of law six months later on April 30, 1997, at the rate asserted and the amount of duty deposited at the time of entry.
Summary Judgment Order,
DISCUSSION
I.
We review the Court of International Trade’s grant of summary judgment for correctness as a matter of law, deciding de novo (i) the proper interpretation of the governing statute and regulations; and (ii) whether genuine issues of material fact exist.
Int’l Light Metals v. United States,
The government’s first argument on appeal is that the Court of International Trade, relying on International Trading II, erred in holding that publication of the final results of the third administrative review in the Federal Register provided notice to Customs of the removal of the suspension of liquidation of the March 1994 shop towel entry. The government argues that publication of the final results in the Federal Register did not constitute notice to Customs within the meaning of section 1504(d). In making this argument, the government points to the notice provision of the Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1511, which provides in relevant part as follows:
Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, filing of a document, required or authorized to be published by section 1505 of this title, ... is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it.
44 U.S.C. § 1507 (emphasis added). The government notes that a “person” is defined in 44 U.S.C. § 1501 as “an individual, partnership, association or corporation.” The government further notes that a federal agency is not included in the definition
The government states that it advanced this argument in its briefing in International Trading II (which did not mention the argument) and in an unsuccessful petition for panel rehearing following the decision in International Trading II. The government urges that the court erred in International Trading II when it held that publication of the final results of an administrative review in the Federal Register provides notice to Customs of the removal of a suspension of liquidation. The government asks us to recommend to the full court that International Trading II be overruled en banc. See Federal Circuit Rule 35(a)(2) (2004).
We are not persuaded by the government’s argument. International Trading II’s discussion of the issue of notice to Customs is thorough and well-reasoned. The court stated:
For some of the same reasons that publication of the final results [of an administrative review] removes the suspension of liquidation, publication also provides notice of the removal to Customs. Publication in the Federal Register is a familiar manner of providing notice to parties in antidumping proceedings. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(d) (1994) (requiring the International Trade Commission and Commerce to notify interested parties of their determinations by publication in the Federal Register); 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c)(2)(A) (1994) (requiring Commerce to publish notice in the Federal Register if it decides to allow an importer to post a bond in lieu of the deposit of estimated antidumping duties); 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c)(3) (1988) (requiring Commerce to publish notice in the Federal Register of the results of its determinations and to assess antidumping duties based on those published results); 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (1994) (requiring parties who object to a Commission decision to act within 30 days after the date of publication of that decision in the Federal Register); 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c)(l) (1994) (tying the date for liquidation of entries affected by a relevant court decision to the date that notice of that court decision is published in the Federal Register). It therefore seems reasonable that Congress intended for publication of the final results in the Federal Register to have some legal effect.
Moreover, the date of publication provides an unambiguous and public starting point for the six-month liquidation period, and it does not give the government the ability to postpone indefinitely the removal of suspension of liquidation (and thus the date by which liquidation must be completed) as would be the case if the six-month liquidation period did not begin to run until Commerce sent a message to Customs advising of the removal of suspension of liquidation. Beyond that, treating the date of notification as separate from the date of publication could lead to messy factual disputes about when Customs actually received notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation.
Int’l Trading II,
Thus,
International Trading II
based its ruling on the notice issue on a careful analysis of statutes relating to antidump-
II.
A.
Under International Trading II, the suspension of liquidation of the March 1994 shop towel entry was removed on October 30,1996, when Commerce published notice of the results of the third administrative review in the Federal Register. Also under International Trading II, publication of the results of the administrative review in the Federal Register gave Customs notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation. Thus, were it not for the 1994 amendment adding the “[ejxcept as provided” clause to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d), this case would be on “all fours” with International Trading II. In short, there would be no question that, in accordance with the plain language of section 1504(d), the March 1994 shop towel entry was deemed liquidated at the 2.72% rate of entry on April 30, 1997, six months after the removal of the suspension of its liquidation. What we must now address is whether the 1994 amendment changes that result. We begin with the statutory language. Section 1504(d) provides as follows:
(d) Removal of suspension
Except as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title, when a suspension required by statute or court order is removed, the Customs Service shall liquidate the entry, unless liquidation is extended under subsection (b) of this section, 3 within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from the Department of Commerce. Any entry (other than an entry with respect to which liquidation has been extended under subsection (b) of this section) not liquidated by the Customs Service within 6 months after receiving such notice shall be treated as having been liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer of record.
19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Section 1675(a)(3), which is referenced in the first sentence of section 1504(d), provides in relevant part as follows:
(B) Liquidation of entries.
If the administering authority orders any liquidation of entries pursuant to a review under paragraph (l), 4 such liquidation shall be made promptly and, to the greatest extent practicable, within 90 days after the instructions to Customs are issued. In any case in which liquidation has not occurred within that 90-day period, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the request of the affected party, provide an explanation thereof.
19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3)(B).
Congress enacted section 1504 in 1978, in order to restrict the length of time
Section 1504(d) was amended just one year later, after the United States signed the Uruguay Round Agreements in 1994. Annexed to The Uruguay Round Agreements was the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994 (the “Antidumping Agreement”). The Anti-dumping Agreement imposed time limits for the completion of administrative reviews and for the liquidation of entries. Article 9.31 of the Agreement provides:
When the amount of the anti-dumping duty is assessed on a retrospective basis, the determination of the final liability for payment of anti-dumping duties shall take place as soon as possible, normally within 12 months, and in no case more than 18 months, after the date on which a request for a final assessment of the amount of the anti-dumping duty has been made. 20 Any refund shall be made promptly and normally in not more than 90 days following the determination of final liability made pursuant to this sub-paragraph. In any case, where a refund is not made within 90 days, the authorities shall provide an explanation if so requested.
In order for the United States to fulfill its obligations under the Antidumping Agreement, Congress amended the tariff law by adding three new subsections to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3). URAA, 108 Stat. 4809. Subsection B of section 1675(a)(3), which is at issue in this case, was added with respect to the liquidation of entries subject to an administrative review. Congress also amended section 1504(d) by adding the phrase “[ejxcept as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title,” to the first sentence of the section. The proviso language in section 1504(d) is described in the implementing legislation as a “conforming amendment.”
See
URAA, § 220(c),
B.
The government contends that the Court of International Trade’s interpretation of section 1504(d) is erroneous because it gives no effect to the clause “[ejxcept as provided in section 1675(a)(3) of this title.” The government argues that the plain meaning of this clause is that an entry covered by the provisions of section 1675(a)(3)(B) is exempt from the deemed liquidation mandate of section 1504(d). According to the government, the clause requires section 1504(d)’s general command to yield to the more specific language of section 1675(a)(3), which the government asserts imposes only the requirement that, “to the greatest extent practicable,” Customs liquidate an entry within ninety days after instructions issue following completion of an administrative review. The government thus urges that an entry subject to the proviso of the first sentence of section 1504(d) need not be liquidated within six months after notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation and that the deemed liquidation requirement of the second sentence of the section simply does not apply. Consequently, the government argues, the September 26, 1997 liquidation of the March 1994 shop towel entry was timely. 7
The government also argues that the legislative history does not support the Court of International Trade’s interpretation of section 1504(d). In so arguing, the
The Administration is aware of prior complaints regarding delays in the completion of administrative reviews and the liquidation of entries, and intends to do its utmost to ensure that Commerce and Customs are able to comply with the deadlines established by the bill. At the same time, however, it is not the Administration’s intent to sacrifice the accuracy of results and fairness to the parties involved for the sake of speed.
1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4202. According to the government, this statement indicates Congress’ intent to allow Commerce sufficient time to accurately translate the final results of an administrative review into workable liquidation instructions. Thus, the government argues, for entries covered by section 1675(a)(3)(B), Congress chose not to impose a specific time period for the issuance of liquidation instructions.
ITC responds that the March 1994 entry was never subject to the provisions of section 1675(a)(3)(B) because, by its terms, the section only comes into play after Commerce has ordered the liquidation of entries subject to an administrative review. Thus, according to ITC, by the time Commerce ordered liquidation of the March 1994 entry on July 1, 1997, the entry was already deemed liquidated pursuant to section 1504(d) on April 30, 1997. ITC further argues that even if the March 1994 entry were subject to section 1675(a)(3)(B), the entry would not be removed from the discipline of deemed liquidation under section 1504(d). According to ITC, Congress’ placement of the “[ejxcept as provided” clause only in the first sentence of section 1504(d) indicates Congress’ intent that deemed liquidation apply to “any entry,” including an entry covered by the clause in the first sentence. ITC argues that the “except as provided” clause in the first sentence of section 1504(d) is not rendered meaningless under this interpretation because the proviso serves to reference the requirement for prompt liquidation, the urging that the liquidation be within 90 days of when instructions are issued to Commerce, and the right to an explanation created by Congress in section 1675(a)(3)(B).
We are not persuaded that either the “[ejxcept as provided” clause in the first sentence of section 1504(d) or the language of section 1675(a)(3)(B) changes the result compelled by
International Trading II.
We thus agree with the Court of International Trade that the phrase “[a]ny entry,” appearing in the second sentence of section 1504(d), refers to all entries, including entries suspended on account of an administrative review (the class of entries to which the proviso in the first sentence of section 1504(d) referring to section 1675(a)(3) applies). At the same time, we do not agree with the government that the Court of International Trade’s reading of “any entry” in the second sentence of section 1504(d) renders the proviso in the first sentence meaningless. The reason is that the proviso works to refer
Moreover, as noted, one of the primary objectives of the 1993 amendment to section 1504(d) was to remove the government’s unilateral ability to extend the time for liquidating entries indefinitely. The purpose, in turn, of the 1994 amendment to section 1504(d) was to conform the administrative review statute more closely to the Antidumping Agreement’s time limits for the refund of duties. The implementing legislation described the 1994 change to section 1504(d) as a conforming amendment. Thus, the SAA explains that “Section 220(c) makes conforming changes to Section 504 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a provision which establishes general rules regarding the liquidation of customs entries.” 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4202 (emphasis added). We think it unlikely that Congress would have undone the primary objective of the 1993 amendment to section 1504(d) by removing time limits already present in the law, without any indication in the legislative history that such a substantive change was being made.
The SAA comment relied upon by the government, that “it is not the Administration’s intent to sacrifice the accuracy of results and fairness to the parties involved for the sake of speed,” fails to mention any change to existing law with respect to the deemed liquidation requirement of section 1504(d). We think this comment is most reasonably interpreted as indicating that liquidation should occur to the greatest extent practicable within the ninety-day period set forth in new section 1675(a)(3)(B), not as indicating that entries subject to administrative review are exempt from the requirement of deemed liquidation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Court of International Trade that the period for deemed liquidation pursuant to section 1504(d) was not triggered when Customs received liquidation instructions from Commerce on July 1, 1997, but rather, was triggered when the final results of the third administrative review covering the entry were published in the Federal Register on October 30, 1996. Accordingly, the subject entry was deemed liquidated under section 1504(d) on April 30, 1997. The decision of the Court of International Trade is therefore affirmed.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Effective March 1, 2003, the United States Customs Service was renamed the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. 107-296, § 1502, 116 Stat. 2135, 2308-2309 (2002).
. Statutory references are to the 2000 version of the United States Code.
. The exception for an entry whose liquidation has been extended pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b) does not apply in this case.
. Paragraph (1) of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) provides, inter alia, for periodic antidumping administrative reviews.
. The 1978 version of the statute provided:
Any entry of merchandise not liquidated at the expiration of four years from the applicable date specified in subsection (a) of this section, shall be deemed liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted at the time of entry by the importer, his assignee, or agent, unless liquidation continues to be suspended as required by statute or court order. When such suspension of liquidation is removed, the entry shall be liquidated within 90 days therefrom.
19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) (1978) (emphasis added). The "applicable date” was the date of entry of the merchandise.
Id.
§ 1504(a). Court decisions interpreted the 90-day time period in the last sentence as directory rather than mandatory.
See Dal-Tile,
. It Is Understood That The Observance Of Time-Limits Mentioned In This Subpara-
. Section 220 of the URAA states in relevant part:
Conforming Amendment. — Section 504 (19 U.S.C. 1504) is amended'—
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting "except as provided in section 751(a)(3),” before "an entry of merchandise not liquidated”, and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking "When a suspension” and inserting "Except as provided in section 751(a)(3), when a suspension”.
URAA, § 220(c),
. The government's argument that the March 1994 entry was wholly removed from the reach of section 1504(d) and was subject solely to section 1675(a)(3)(B), was advanced for the first time before the Court of International Trade. Under these circumstances, the argument was not entitled to deference under
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
. 19 U.S.C. § 3512(d) provides that the SAA "shall be regarded as an authoritative expression by the United States concerning the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding in which a question arises concerning such interpretation or application.” We have recognized the authority of the SAA.
See Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,