United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 22-47

Before the Court in Voestalpine USA Corp, et. al., v. United States, Consol. Court No 20-3829, were three different motions. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the previous dismissal of the consolidated case 20-3829 and 21-290, and a motion to file an amended complaint in each case. In addition, the Government had moved to dismiss each case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the following reasons, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration of the previous dismissals, granted the motion to file one amended complaint, and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the cases for failure to state a claim. The Court denied one motion to amend a complaint. Plaintiff’s case requested that the Court order reliquidation of entries under an improperly granted Commerce Section 232 exclusion, with a non-existent HTSUS co e, so that the proper exclusion and HTSUS may be applied and refunds issued. “Pursuant to USCIT Rule 59(a)(1)(B), ‘[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial or rehearing on all or some of the issues — and to any party — . . . after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.’

USCIT 60(b)(1) provides for relief from a final judgment based on ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.’” Id. at 15 “Reconsideration is appropriate to correct ‘a significant flaw in the conduct of the original proceeding’ but is not intended ‘to allow the losing party to reargue its case.’” Id. The Court has previously dismissed plaintiff’s case on the theory that plaintiff’s claims were moot because of the finality of reliquidation. The Court concluded “that the appropriateness of reliquidation as a form of relief would be better addressed in conjunction with an analysis of the claims presented by Plaintiffs in these cases and not through the lens of mootness.” Id. at 20. As such the motion for reconsideration was granted. Plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint in each of the consolidated cases. The government consented to the amended complaint in Case 21-290, but opposed it in Case 20-3829. The motion to amend in Case 21-290 was granted because plaintiff only sought to drop two entries in the action, “the minor nature of the change, in conjunction with the benefit of having a clear record regarding the scope of the action, favors accepting the proposed second amended complaint” Id. at 22. However, for the reasons discussed below the motion to amend in 20-3829 was denied as futile.

The final issue the Court dealt with was the Government’s motion to dismiss the cases for failure to state a claim. “A court may properly dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only if Plaintiffs’ allegations of fact are not ‘enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” Id. at 23. “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Id. The Court that said that remanding the case “to BIS is unnecessary … because BIS provided all the relief it could when it issued the revised exclusions and made those exclusions retroactive. Id. at 24. “Thus, the court returns to the question of court-ordered reliquidation.” Id.

“Plaintiffs make no claim that the limitation on retroactive refunds to entries that have not liquidated or for which liquidation is not final is arbitrary or capricious.” Id. at 26. As such, the court concluded that Plaintiffs did not state a claim pursuant to which court-ordered reliquidation is an appropriate remedy.