CIT's Violation of Finality of Liquidation 'Patently Absurd,' Target Tells CAFC

In Cemex v. U.S, as is the case with Target, an antidumping duty proceeding led to a higher dumping rate than the mark imposed for the cash deposits. However, a group of entries was deemed liquidated at the lower cash deposit rate and there was no reliquidation within 90 days of this development, as allowed under the law. Reliquidation was sought in the courts, but the Federal Circuit said that liquidation became "final and conclusive."

In Target's case, the trade court questioned the reasoning of Cemex and illegally ordered reliquidation of Target's metal-top ironing tables, which were originally liquidated at a 9.47% dumping rate but ultimately were hit with a 72.29% rate, Target said.

Target's case stems from a matter previously settled by CIT and the Federal Circuit, Home Products v. U.S., in which the appellate court sustained the trade court's order to reliquidate the ironing table imports. In that proceeding, CBP erroneously liquidated 224 of the entries, 40 of which were Target's. CBP told the court of the error and was granted a redo despite the 90-day window being closed. Target was not allowed to intervene in the Home Products suit.

Filing its own case, the retailer said Cemex precluded this reliquidation, though the trade court ruled that the reliance on the opinion "is simply misplaced" (see 2307200049). Now at the Federal Circuit, Target noted that in Home Products, CIT recognized that Cemex can be "read more broadly" as finding that domestic interested parties "simply have no remedy to correct an erroneous" liquidation. Target said its case "is not a broad reading" but "the only reasonable reading of that case."

In Home Products, the trade court questioned Cemex, finding it "difficult to understand" the Federal Circuit's conclusion that Congress, having provided rights for domestic parties within the trade remedy statutes, somehow meant that those parties have no remedy to correct a CBP error. Target argued that it's not "the province of a lower court to disregard a decision of an appellate court whether it understands it or not."

The retailer claimed that the "simple fact of the matter is that, in many cases, importers as well as domestic parties can be frustrated by the finality of the statute of limitations." The trade court apparently believes that the bar against reliquidation "should not apply in the case of a domestic producer seeking reliquidation but should apply to an importer who is seeking the same relief. That is patently absurd and grossly inequitable."

A court can use its powers to "enforce the law" but not to disregard it, the brief said. Here, CIT used its powers in staying the final order while considering Target's motions, but its powers don't stand in an "unlimited vacuum and must be grounded 'in the particular case at issue.'" In this case, that means the court may not disrupt the finality of liquidation.