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 There is caselaw (even if in the legal netherworld of "nonprecedential" decisions) stating that erroneous liquidations can, and therefore, should be protested.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

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