CIT Backs Government, Rejects Acme Claim on Chinese Furniture Reliquidation
The U.S. Court of International Trade granted the U.S. government's motion to dismiss Acme Furniture Industry, Inc. vs. the U.S., in a decision July 18. The government had said Acme failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but Acme said it was challenging an erroneous reliquidation by the CBP, so its challenge falls within section 1581(a).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The CIT said Acme failed to carry its burden of establishing the CIT's jurisdiction over the matter, or to state a claim upon which relief can be granted where jurisdiction exists, so it granted the government's motion to dismiss.
In 2005, the Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China ("PRC"). In 2008, Commerce set a China-wide rate of 216.01% and issued liquidation instructions to CBP. Acme imports wooden bedroom furniture from China. At issue was entries of daybeds Acme made in 2008, which were liquidated by CBP at the China-wide rate on November 5, 2010, and November 12, 2010.
In 2011, Acme filed a scope ruling request with Commerce asking for a determination that the daybeds it imported were outside the scope of the Antidumping Duty Order. On April 15, 2011, Commerce said daybeds with a trundle were subject to the Antidumping Duty Order while daybeds without a trundle were outside the Order's scope. It later issued liquidation instructions based on the Scope Ruling. Acme also took steps before CBP to dispute whether its daybeds were subject to the Antidumping Duty Order.
CBP reliquidated some of Acme's entries of daybeds without trundles, and issued to Acme a bill in the amount of $27,641.01. Acme filed a two-count Complaint.
In its analysis, the Court said it is without jurisdiction to consider scope disputes. Contrary to Acme's allegations, it said, the instructions issued by Commerce after the Scope Ruling are consistent with CBP's collection of antidumping duties from Acme for its 2008 entries of daybeds without trundles, so the instructions issued to CBP by Commerce following the Scope Ruling do not give support Acme's claim that it was injured by an erroneous liquidation. It also said Acme has cited no authority, "and the Court is aware of none, holding that CBP's erroneous reliquidation mandates another reliquidation of entries that was not provided for in the instructions from Commerce."