Water Clearer after Alden Leeds

I almost missed this: The Federal Circuit has reversed the Court of International Trade's decision in Alden Leeds. For some reason, the Court has labeled it as nonprecedential. To me, that usually means, "don't bother reading this." But, since I covered the CIT decision and the Federal Circuit decision is interesting, I am happy to have received the anonymous tip to read the case.

If you don't remember the facts, you should read the original post. In summary, Customs and Border Protection improperly liquidated entries subject to a dumping case at the 25% deposit rate rather than the correct 4% assessment rate. Customs published a notice of the liquidation, which CBP claims occurred by operation of law. Alden did not notice the liquidation notice and asserted that the liquidation was void, making the notice a nullity. As a result, it went to Court seeking a refund of the duties. The Court of International Trade found in favor of Alden despite a Federal Circuit decision in a similar case that went the other way.

The issue before the CAFC was whether the Court of International Trade correctly decided that it had jurisdiction to resolve the case. The government asserted that to get into the CIT, Alden should have filed a protest of the admittedly erroneous liquidation. Alden said that because there was no valid liquidation, there was nothing to protest.

Unfortunately for Alden, the Federal Circuit has previous said that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement." That is on page 10 of the 16 page opinion. Had the Court led with that statement, we could have saved some time and paper because it is, as I learned in law school, "The Decisive Utterance."

What this means, as the Court pointed out, is that importers must monitor their entries for liquidation, whether or not that liquidation is legitimate. Failure to note and timely protest a liquidation will likely result in the protest becoming final and not subject to challenge. One interesting footnote (literally, it is footnote 3), distinguishes between agency suspensions of liquidation and violations of court imposed injunctions. If CBP liquidates contrary to an injunction, that liquidation is null and void. In addition, the fact that Alden's entries were deemed liquidated rather than actually liquidated was not a basis for a different decision. The Federal Circuit had already settled that question in another case.

That is likely a bitter pill for Alden to swallow, but it is probably not dirty pool (which is something Alden Leeds can help with).

Comments

bestpmchennai said…
Hey, nice site you have here! Keep up the excellent work!


House for Sale in Leeds
Mar 30, 2012, 4:57:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more