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

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