United States Court of International Trade

19-126

Before the Court in Home Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-126, Court No. 07-0123 (September 27, 2019) was a challenge to Customs authority to reliquidate entries improperly liquidated in accordance with a stipulation filed with the Court, after the statutory deadline for reliquidation. Customs improperly liquidated 224 entries, resulting in the under collection of millions of dollars’ worth of anti-dumping duties. “The error was brought to the attention of the Government shortly after the 90-day window expired for Customs to voluntarily reliquidate the subject entries.” Id. at 2. “With no other direct statutory authorization to correct the error, the Government sought an order from the court directing Customs to reliquidate those entries in accordance with the Judgment.” Id. For the following reasons, the Court ordered the Court to reliquidate the entries properly.

“Liquidation, the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption, is a fundamental concept in all U.S. import transactions.” Id. at 4. “Optimally, liquidation occurs correctly. If not, reliquidation to correct any resulting error is neither inevitable nor open-ended because … Customs has 90-day window after liquidation in which to correct errors” under 19 USC § 1514. Id. at 4-5. However, the Court pointed out “liquidation of entries covered by an antidumping or countervailing duty order is somewhat unusual.” Id. at 5.

The Court said “Section 1514’s primary focus is on the rights of importers in customs matters, not trade cases at the Court of International Trade.” Id. at 14. Instead, Congress passed different mechanisms for liquidation in trade remedy cases. The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and Federal Circuit have jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e). As such, the CIT has the power to enforce its judgments and the Court ordered Customs to reliquidate the subject entries.

19-127

Before the Court in Canadian Solar Int’l Ltd. et. al. v. United States et. al., Slip Op. 19-127, Court No. 17-00173 (October 1, 2019) was the motion of Plaintiff-Intervenor, Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd.’s (“Qixin”), to file out of time new factual information related to the Commerce’s remand results. On remand “Commerce requested that Qixin provide information which would demonstrate whether Qixin had a sale or entry of the subject merchandise during the period of review. “ Id. at 3. “Qixin replied by letter, stating that it had been unable to obtain the information requested and that all of the information . . . is in the possession of the United States government.” Id. Commerce issued its “remand redetermination to the parties, in which Commerce determined that Qixin was not eligible for a separate rate because it failed to provide conclusive evidence that it had a sale or shipment of subject merchandise.” Id. “Qixin now requests leave from the court to file new factual information pertinent to Commerce’s denial of separate rate status.” Id. at 4. For the following reasons the Court denied the motion.

“Generally, a court will not consider matters outside of that administrative record, unless the omission prevents effective judicial review.” Id. “However, a reviewing court will examine information outside of the administrative record when a party demonstrates that there is a “reasonable basis to believe that materials considered by agency decision makers are not in the record.” Id. at 5. The Court said “Plaintiff-Intervenor does not allege that the omission of certain information precludes the court’s consideration of the Remand Results or that the record is incomplete.” Id. “Instead, Plaintiff-Intervenor now argues that, because it had not adequately responded to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire, the Court should require Commerce to consider materials that were not on the record.” Id. The Court did not accept this argument, saying “If Qixin wishes to submit information in the administrative proceeding, it must do so in that proceeding …, If Qixin requires additional time to submit this information, Commerce’s regulations provide the opportunity to request an extension of time.” Id. at 6. As such, the motion was denied.