CIT Finds All AD/CVD Rescission Notices Start Liquidation Clock
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 ruled on a series of questions related to suspension of liquidation and interest on antidumping and countervailing duties, but put off its final decision on whether a surety is actually liable for paying them until after a trial (here). In a long-running dispute over whether American Home Assurance Co. owes the government duties on entries where the government never provided notice of suspension of liquidation, the court ruled that neither AHAC nor the government proved whether the lack of notice actually hurt the surety.
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.
CIT had already ruled in 2011 that the requirement that CBP provide notice of suspension of liquidation to sureties does not mean liquidation isn’t suspended if it doesn’t (see 11052314). AHAC again argued that the lack of notice meant liquidation wasn’t properly suspended and the entries it insured should have deemed liquidated, but CIT refused to reconsider its earlier decision. However, CIT agreed to consider whether the lack of notice significantly prejudiced AHAC and should void the government’s Section 1582 lawsuit.
Before it got there, however, CIT considered a litany of other issues related to the case, including whether Commerce Department notices of “partial rescission” ending AD/CVD administrative reviews for certain exporters signal the beginning of the six-month clock for CBP to liquidate entries for those exporters. CIT had in 2011 ruled in a different case that a Commerce partial rescission notice started the clock (see 11090903). The government argued that was a special circumstance, because the notice at issue in the 2011 case specifically directed the end of suspension of liquidation (see 11090903). CIT disagreed, finding the partial rescission notices always direct CBP to liquidate. As a consequence, it found the government’s claims were too late for some of AHAC’s entries.
CIT also found that post-liquidation interest under 19 USC 1505(d) also applies to unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties. The court applied the logic of a similar case on the applicability of Section 580 interest to AD/CV duties (see 1506190065), finding the word “duties” under 19 USC 1505(d) applies to AD/CV duties as well as customs tariffs.
Turning to whether the government’s lack of notice to AHAC should invalidate its claims, CIT ruled that the problem had no effect on single transaction bonds AHAC had issued to several importers. Even if the surety had received notice, it wouldn’t have done anything different, said CIT. That's because single transaction bonds can’t be canceled, and the importer probably would not have put up more collateral, it said. However, on AHAC’s continuous bonds, CIT found AHAC could have either canceled the bonds if it had received notice, or at least threatened cancellation to obtain more collateral. Nonetheless, CIT found it did not have enough evidence to judge whether AHAC would actually have taken any action if it had received notice, ordering a trial to decide the issue.
(United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Slip Op. 15-141, CIT # 09-00401, dated 12/17/15, Judge Eaton)