The Graceful Injunction

Agro Dutch Industries is technically a dumping case, but it deals with the issue of the impact of liquidation by Customs and Border Protection, so I will deal with it here.

This case involves the review of the dumping order covering preserved mushrooms from India. Commerce issued its determination and Agro sought to challenge it. To preserve its rights, Agro moved for an injunction with the consent of the United States. The injunction was necessary to prevent Customs from liquidating the entries. The general rule is that once liquidation happens, there is no relief available and the case is moot. So, the injunction was important and both sides knew it. In the background is the fact that Agro waited beyond the allowed 30 days to seek the injunction, but that provides context more than anything else.

At the request of the government, the injunction included a five day grace period before it became effective. The grace period was intended to prevent Customs people from accidentally violating the order and ending up in contempt of court.

Guess what happened: Customs liquidated most of the entries during the five day period.

Agro went back into Court asking that the injunction be retroactively amended to cover the entries of for some other relief to fix the situation. The Court of International Trade granted the relief and ordered that the entries be treated as unliquidated. The government appealed.

This is one of those interesting cases where the law, at least in general terms, seems to produce a bad result. Following a number of Federal Circuit decisions, it would seem clear that the liquidations mooted out the case. But, the facts matter and often the decision lies in the details.

In this case, the fact that the United States agreed to the injunction and requested the five day gap only to protect Customs from possibly erroneously violating an injunction indicated that both sides understood that there should be no intentional liquidations during that period. Consequently, the intent of both parties and the Court of International Trade was that the entries would remain unliquidated and available for judicial relief. Given those unique facts, the Court invoked its powers in equity to affirm the Court of International Trade's order modifying the injunction and preserving the entries for review and relief.

It's a surprising result, which only makes sense when you look at the details. The lawyers who worked on it for Agro must have done a good job. Unfortunately, Agro appears to have been represented by the Unknown Lawyer of Anonymous, Secret & Nameless. Otherwise, the CAFC would have named them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more