Water Clearer after Alden Leeds

I almost missed this: The Federal Circuit has reversed the Court of International Trade's decision in Alden Leeds. For some reason, the Court has labeled it as nonprecedential. To me, that usually means, "don't bother reading this." But, since I covered the CIT decision and the Federal Circuit decision is interesting, I am happy to have received the anonymous tip to read the case.

If you don't remember the facts, you should read the original post. In summary, Customs and Border Protection improperly liquidated entries subject to a dumping case at the 25% deposit rate rather than the correct 4% assessment rate. Customs published a notice of the liquidation, which CBP claims occurred by operation of law. Alden did not notice the liquidation notice and asserted that the liquidation was void, making the notice a nullity. As a result, it went to Court seeking a refund of the duties. The Court of International Trade found in favor of Alden despite a Federal Circuit decision in a similar case that went the other way.

The issue before the CAFC was whether the Court of International Trade correctly decided that it had jurisdiction to resolve the case. The government asserted that to get into the CIT, Alden should have filed a protest of the admittedly erroneous liquidation. Alden said that because there was no valid liquidation, there was nothing to protest.

Unfortunately for Alden, the Federal Circuit has previous said that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement." That is on page 10 of the 16 page opinion. Had the Court led with that statement, we could have saved some time and paper because it is, as I learned in law school, "The Decisive Utterance."

What this means, as the Court pointed out, is that importers must monitor their entries for liquidation, whether or not that liquidation is legitimate. Failure to note and timely protest a liquidation will likely result in the protest becoming final and not subject to challenge. One interesting footnote (literally, it is footnote 3), distinguishes between agency suspensions of liquidation and violations of court imposed injunctions. If CBP liquidates contrary to an injunction, that liquidation is null and void. In addition, the fact that Alden's entries were deemed liquidated rather than actually liquidated was not a basis for a different decision. The Federal Circuit had already settled that question in another case.

That is likely a bitter pill for Alden to swallow, but it is probably not dirty pool (which is something Alden Leeds can help with).

Comments

bestpmchennai said…
Hey, nice site you have here! Keep up the excellent work!


House for Sale in Leeds
Mar 30, 2012, 4:57:00 AM
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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance topic. So, let's
Read more

Precious Tritium

Image
One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The
Read more