United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-36

Before the Court in PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, Court No. 20-00032, Slip Op. 21-36 (April 5, 2021) was a “Joint Status Report” that both parties submitted in response to the Court’s order in PrimeSource Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 45 CIT __, Slip. Op. 21-8 (Jan. 27, 2021) (“PrimeSource I”). Id. at 2. In the parties’ Joint Status Report, defendants expressly waived “the opportunity to provide additional factual information that might show that the ‘essential requirements of Section 232(b)(2)(A), 19 U.S.C. § 1862(B)(2)(A)’ were met,” adding that “[d]efendants do not intend to pursue that argument.” Id. at 6. Defendants informed the Court that their “position continues to be that procedural preconditions for the issuance of Proclamation 9980 were met by the Secretary’s 2018 Steel Report and the timely issuance of Proclamation 9705, a position that the majority has already rejected.” Id. at 7. The Joint Status Report concluded by stating that “the parties agree and respectfully submit that there is no reason for this Court to delay entry of final judgment.” Id. For the following reasons, in response to statements of the parties in the Join Status Report, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Id. at 2.

The Court may enter summary judgment for a party sua sponte under USCIT Rule 56(f), which provides that “[a]fter giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may . . . consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute.” Id. at 7. In determining whether to enter summary judgment sua sponte, a court must ensure that prejudice will not accrue to the would-be losing party stemming from that party’s inability to present evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Id. at 8. Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(a). Id. at 9. To declare Proclamation 9980 invalid, the Court must find “a clear misconstruction of the governing statute, a significant procedural violation, or action outside delegated authority.” Id. at 11. In this litigation, the Court found that “the parties, and defendants in particular, expressly have declined to pursue the opportunity to present additional evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of a material fact.” Id. at 8. The court explained that the defendants’ statement in the Joint Status Report that their “position continues to be that procedural preconditions for the issuance of Proclamation 9980 were met by the Secretary’s 2018 Steel Report and the timely issuance of Proclamation 9705” constituted a waiver of any defense that the assessments of the Commerce Secretary, as described in Proclamation 9980, were the functional equivalent of a Section 232(b)(3)(A) report. Id. By joining in the statement that “the parties agree and respectfully submit that there is no reason for this Court to delay entry of final judgment,” the Court found that defendants “waived any claim of prejudice that could result from the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, subject to their right to appeal. Id. Thus, the Court found that a sua sponte order of summary judgment was appropriate because the parties had been given the full opportunity to “come forward” with any evidence of a dispute of material fact. Id. at 9. The Court explained that because defendants “waived any argument that Proclamation 9980 was issued within the 105-day time period beginning on the President’s receipt of a report qualifying under Section 232(b)(3)(A), there are no contested issues of fact.” Id. at 9. Here, the Court found that in the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact, plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The Court explained that because “the President issued Proclamation 9980 after the congressionally-delegated authority to adjust imports of the products addressed in that proclamation had expired, Proclamation 9980 was action outside of delegated authority.” Id. at 11. The Court rejected defendants’ position that Congress intended for the time limitations in Section 232(c)(1) to be “merely directory”, and the Court found a “significant procedural violation” in the untimeliness of Proclamation 9980 a. Id. at 11. The Court concluded that “[a]s relief on this claim, we will declare Proclamation 9980 invalid as contrary to law and, on that basis, direct that the entries affected by this litigation be liquidated without the assessment of duties pursuant to Proclamation 9980, with refund of any deposits for such duty liability that may have been collected pursuant to Proclamation 9980. Also, should any entries of PrimeSource’s merchandise at issue in this litigation have liquidated with the assessment of 25% duties pursuant to Proclamation 9980,

PrimeSource is entitled to reliquidation of those entries and a refund of any duties deposited or paid, with interest as provided by law.” Id. at 11-12. As such, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Id. at 11.