UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 23-129

Before the Court in AM/NS Calvert LLC v. United States, Court No. 21-00005, California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 21-00015, and Valbruna Slate Stainless Steel, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 21-00027, Slip Op. 23-129 (September 6, 2023) were three importers’ actions seeking court-ordered refunds of Section 232 duties. Plaintiffs brought Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenges to the Department of Commerce’s refusal to exclude certain steel products from national security tariffs. The government moved for voluntary remand without confessing error, representing that Commerce’s reconsideration might afford Plaintiffs the relief sought and make adjudication of their APA challenges unnecessary.

However, plaintiffs objected to the remand because recent litigation demonstrated the government’s position that no relief is available as a matter of law for entries that have finally liquidated. Plaintiffs contended that remand would, therefore, be pointless as to most of the entries at issue which so liquidated after Commerce denied their exclusion requests. In turn, the government argued that the instant cases are largely moot because the Court lacked the authority to order relquidation as to such entries as a matter of law or at least on the facts at issue and argued that the Court could not offer any practical relief to Plaintiffs as to their finally liquidated entries.

The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief as to finally liquidated entries for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the CIT is not deprived of its constitutional jurisdiction over claims to order reliquidation as to finally liquidated entries pursuant to the APA. Furthermore, because the government’s argument that relief is unavailable as to finally liquidated entries implicates the merits, the Court addressed Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under USCIT R. 12(c), which the Court treated as partial summary judgement motions. (The parties relied on undisputed admissions outside the pleadings that some or all of Plaintiff’s entries at issue have finally liquidated in each of these cases.) The government contended that the Court lacked authority to order Commerce to instruct Customs to reliquidate entries in all cases brought under the Court’s residual 1581(i) jurisdiction. The Court held that equitable relief is available under the APA in all 1581(i) cases.

However, it specified that such relief is not available as of right, instead, such relief is subject to ordinary equitable principles. As a result, it held that Plaintiffs in the instant case properly invoked 1581(i) jurisdiction, necessarily meaning that no other statute is “addressed to the type of grievance” they assert and therefore, Plaintiffs do state a claim under the APA for injunctive relief requiring reliquidation, subject to ordinary equitable principles, which principles the Court considers at length in its opinion.

As such, the Court denied Defendant’s motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief as to finally liquidated entries for lack of jurisdiction, denied Defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment as to those claims, and, considering remand to an agency an exercise of the court’s equitable powers, it granted Defendant’s motions for voluntary remand subject to certain conditions.