Liquidation Un-Deemed by CIT

What happens when Customs decides that an entry was "deemed liquidated" while the entry is suspended by the Commerce Department? Apparently, nothing. That is the gist of the decision in Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. United States, a (relatively) recent decision from the Court of International Trade. 

The facts of this case are a bit complicated. The imported merchandise was softwood lumber from Canada, which is subject to an antidumping and countervailing duty order. As part of the administrative process, on March 19, 2020, Commerce ordered that CBP suspend the liquidation of the 80 entries subject to this case. Customs, however, mistakenly scheduled the entries for manual liquidation. Inexplicably, Customs, citing "system errors," failed to actually liquidate them. After noticing the failed (and incorrect) effort to liquidate the entries, CBP marked the entries as having been deemed liquidated by operation of law on August 7, 2020. 


"Deemed liquidation" occurs when CBP fails to liquidate an entry within six months after receiving notice from Commerce that it has lifted the suspension of liquidation. 19 USC 1504(d).  Customs published notice of these "liquidations" on September 2 and 3, 2020. 

When the plaintiff realized that Customs considered the entries to be liquidated, despite the suspension, it reached out to CBP asking that the agency reset the status to unliquidated. Customs responded that the 180-day period in which to protest the liquidation had passed and, therefore, the entries were final. 

Not having a valid denied protest, the plaintiff filed suit in the Court of International Trade under the court's "residual jurisdiction." 28 USC 1581(i). As happens almost every time a plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under (i) to challenge a mistake Customs made, the United States moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to protest the liquidation. Absent a protest, the argument goes, the liquidation is final and the plaintiff has no legal recourse.

The thing about this case, though, is that the entries should never have liquidated to start with. Both parties seem to agree with that. There is caselaw (even if in the legal netherworld of "nonprecedential" decisions) stating that erroneous liquidations can, and therefore, should be protested. The government leaned into that, putting the responsibility on the importer to monitor liquidations and file protests accordingly. This is consistent with the government's current position in the Section 301 litigation that Customs actions can only be undone by reliquidation and that reliquidation is impossible without a timely protest.  

The interesting question in this case is whether liquidation every actually happened. Remember, the first mistake was that CBP scheduled the entries to liquidate contrary to Commerce's order to suspend liquidation. Then, Customs tried and failed to liquidate the entries in accordance with its erroneous understanding of the instructions. Given that everyone agrees the entries should not have liquidated, this seems like a perfectly good way for the that the United States to fix its mistake and resolve the case.

Instead, Customs argued that its notice of the deemed liquidation is a protestable event, making it the equivalent of a liquidation. That may be true for a manual liquidation, for which notice is treated as the evidence of liquidation. A deemed liquidation is different. Under the customs regulations, a deemed liquidation occurs on the expiration of the six-month period after suspension ends, not notice. 19 USC 1504(d) and 19 CFR 159.9(c)(2). Here, Commerce did not lift the suspension so deemed liquidation was never triggered. 

Moreover, the current version of the protest statute, 19 USC 1514, requires that the importer (or other authorized party) file the protest within 180 days of the liquidation. For deemed liquidations, that is the actual date of liquidation, not the notice. Because the notice is irrelevant to the protest clock and because the deemed liquidation never actually occurred, the entries are still suspended, exactly as they should have been. The Court, therefore, denied the motion to dismiss and ordered CBP to reset the entries to unliquidated status. When the AD/CVD process is complete, Commerce will tell Customs what to do and we will all hope Customs does it right.

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