Supreme Court Denies Hearing of Deemed Liquidation Challenge; Incorrect Liquidations are Protestable Events
The Supreme Court denied a hearing for Alden Leeds’ challenge of an incorrect CBP deemed liquidation of entries for which liquidation was suspended. At the time, the entries had been subject to suspension of liquidation because of an ongoing antidumping duty administrative review. The Court of International Trade had originally ruled in favor of Alden Leeds, and ordered a refund on the excess duties paid because the company’s cash deposits exceeded its final calculated assessment rate. But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned CIT’s ruling after finding that the company should have protested deemed liquidation, even if it was incorrect. As a result of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, CAFC’s ruling will stand.
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.
In 2006 and 2007, Alden Leeds imported merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. The ITA issued instructions to CBP to suspend liquidation of these entries, which were part of an administrative review. Alden Leeds paid a cash deposit of 24.83 percent. In the final results of the administrative review, the ITA calculated an assessment rate of 4.07 percent on the entries. But in the meantime, CBP had posted a bulletin notice of liquidation, indicating that the twelve entries at issue were deemed liquidated at a duty rate of 24.83 percent. When Alden Leeds sought the refund to which it would have been entitled, it was informed that the entries had already been liquidated at the higher rate.
Alden Leeds brought suit before CIT under 28 USC 1581(i) residual jurisdiction provision, arguing that it couldn’t file suit under the 28 USC 1581(a) protest denial jurisdiction provision because CBP’s deemed liquidation was not protestable. The deemed liquidation did not occur because the liquidation of the entries had been suspended, it said. In October 2010, CIT agreed, and refused to dismiss the action.
But in March 2012, CAFC reversed CIT’s ruling. Alden Leeds should have filed a protest and then brought suit under 28 USC 1581(a) jurisdiction because, it said, because even though CBP’s action was incorrect, it still was a protestable event. Because the Supreme Court declined review, CAFC’s interpretation will stand.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 10102213 for summary of the CIT’s ruling, and 12031904 for summary of CAFC’s reversal.)