CIT Stays Judgment in Derivatives 232 Challenge

Still catching up. This time, I look at PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, which is another piece of litigation spinning out of President Trump’s Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum products. I posted about the merits decision in this case here. In that decision, the Court found that the extension of the duties to derivative products occurred beyond the 105-days in which the President is authorized to act. At an earlier stage, the Court enjoined CBP from collecting the duties and required the importer to maintain a sufficient bond to ensure payment to CBP should the decision be reversed on appeal. That injunction dissolved on the issuance of the judgment by the Court of International Trade.

This new decision arises out of a request from the United States to stay the enforcement of the judgment and reinstate the terms of the injunction while the government appeals to the Federal Circuit on the merits.

A stay pending appeal is not uncommon. It is a tool that allows the losing party to preserve the status quo and prevent additional injury while the case is on appeal. Absent a stay and reinstatement of the terms of the injunction, the U.S. would not be able to collect the 25% duties on PrimeSource’s nails nor would the U.S. have a bond securing the liability in lieu of payment.

When asked to stay an action pending appeal, the Court looks at four factors:

  1. Whether the moving party has made a strong showing that it will succeed on the merits;
  2.  Whether the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay;
  3.  Whether a stay will substantially injure the non-moving party; and
  4.  Where the public interest lies.

The only one of the four that is controversial here is the first. That is because after the CIT issued its decision in PrimeSource, the Federal Circuit decided Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, which we discussed here. Transpacific challenged the President’s authority to double the Section 232 duties on steel from Turkey beyond the 105-day statutory deadline for presidential action. The Court of Appeals found that the change from 25% to 50% was a modification of a single continuing action and, therefore, was not bound by the 105-day deadline.

Despite arising out of different facts, the Court of International concluded that the Court of Appeals decision in Transpacific “potentially affects the outcome of” PrimeSource. The Court was clear that it was not deciding the issue but held that, for purposes of the motion for a stay, there was sufficient reason to believe that Transpacific provides a strong showing that the United States may succeed on the merits.

The Court went on to consider the remaining factors and found that they all support granting the stay. Reinstating the bond requirements was necessary to preserve the revenue and prevent irreparable harm to the Government. On this point, the Court noted that the irreparable ham would be the lack of a surety that would be responsible for payment of the duties in the event PrimeSource does not pay. The Court was careful to note, in footnote 2, that it was not deciding whether liquidation causes irreparable harm by making the entry final and conclusive as to both the government and the importer.

Regarding possible injury to PrimeSource, the Court noted that the plaintiff will not be required to deposit the additional duties. Rather, it will be required to maintain sufficient bonding to protect the revenue. Although there is a cost associated with the bond, this is the same condition PrimeSource found acceptable in the initial preliminary injunction. Finally, according to the Court, the public interest favors allowing the Government the ability to collect lawful duties.

The Court, therefore, granted the motion for a stay and re-imposed the requirement that PrimeSource monitor its potential duty liability and adjust its bond to cover the risk to the Government.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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 t...
Read more