United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

IMSS, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2060, 2021-2061

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00222-MAB, 1:19-cv-00029-MAB, 

Judge Mark A. Barnett.

______________________ 

Decided: July 28, 2022

______________________ 

LAURA ANDREEA MOYA, Law Offices of Robert W. 

Snyder, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also 

represented by ROBERT WAYNE SNYDER. 

 MARCELLA POWELL, International Trade Field Office, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New 

York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, HARDEEP KAUR JOSAN, AIMEE LEE, 

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, JUSTIN REINHART MILLER; PAULA 

S. SMITH, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Bureau of 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2022
2 ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US

Customs and Border Protection, United States Department of Homeland Security, New York, NY. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Appellants challenge the timing and procedure by 

which the United States Customs and Border Protection 

provided notice to Appellants of the liquidation of eleven 

entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China. Appellants contend that the United States Court of International 

Trade erred in determining that Customs timely liquidated 

or reliquidated ten entries and that Customs’ mislabeling

of the notice of reliquidation for the remaining entry was 

harmless. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellants Aspects Furniture International, Inc. 

(“AFI”) and IMSS, LLC (“IMSS”) are importers of wooden 

bedroom furniture from China. Appellants challenge the 

procedure by which the United States Customs and Border 

Protection (“Customs”) liquidated and/or reliquidated certain of Appellants’ entries of wooden bedroom furniture. At 

issue are the following eleven imports entered during 2014: 

(1) nine entries made by AFI on February 18, February 23, July 8, July 27, and December 15, respectively (“AFI’s Nine Subject Entries”); 

(2) one entry made by AFI on January 31 (“AFI’s 

Tenth Subject Entry”) (together with AFI’s Nine 

Subject Entries, “AFI’s Subject Entries”); and 

(3) one entry made by IMSS on September 11 

(“IMSS’s Subject Entry”). 

J.A. 6, 157, 170, 180, 191, 201, 212, 223, 231, 242, 257, 275.

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2022
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US 3

On March 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) initiated the tenth administrative review of 

the antidumping order covering wooden bedroom furniture 

imported into the United States from China. See Initiation 

of Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Admin. Revs., 

80 Fed. Reg. 11,166, 11,168 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 2, 

2015). On April 11, 2016, Commerce published the results 

of the tenth administrative review in the Federal Register, 

which set a China-wide antidumping duty rate of 216.01

percent ad valorem. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results & Final Determination of No Shipments, In Part: 2014 Admin. Rev., 

81 Fed. Reg. 21,319 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 11, 2016) (“Final 

Admin Results”).

On April 26, 2016, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughn-Bassett 

Furniture Company, Inc. (“AFMC”) filed a lawsuit challenging the Final Admin Results before the Court of International Trade. Am. Furniture Mfrs. Comm. for Legal 

Trade v. United States, No. 16-cv-00070 (Ct. Int’l Trade) 

(“AFMC Litigation”). On April 27, 2016, the Court of International Trade issued an injunction to enjoin the liquidation (“suspension of liquidation”) of the entries involved 

in the AFMC Litigation, including the entries at issue in 

this appeal. J.A. 6. On March 13, 2017, the Court of International Trade dismissed the AFMC Litigation for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. See Am. Furniture Mfrs. 

Comm. for Legal Trade v. United States, No. 16-00070

2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24, at *5–12 (Mar. 13, 2017). 

On May 12, 2017, the dismissal of the AFMC Litigation became final. See J.A. 8. On May 30, 2017, Commerce issued 

liquidation instructions to Customs for the subject entries, 

which notified Customs of the end of the injunction. Id.

On November 24, 2017, Customs liquidated AFI’s Nine 

Subject Entries. J.A. 158, 173, 183, 194, 204, 215, 226, 234, 

245. On November 30, 2017, AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry 

was deemed liquidated. J.A. 413. On December 1, 2017, 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2022
4 ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US

Customs sent a notice of liquidation as to AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry. J.A. 260. AFI’s Subject Entries were assessed 

a final antidumping duty rate of 216.01 percent. J.A. 9. 

AFI timely protested the liquidations, and Customs denied 

the protests. J.A. 286.

On November 30, 2017, IMSS’s Subject Entry was 

deemed liquidated. J.A. 9. On February 16, 2018, Customs sent a notice of liquidation regarding IMSS’s Subject

Entry. J.A. 278. On February 28, 2018, Customs sent a 

notice of reliquidation of IMSS’s Subject Entry. J.A. 280. 

As with AFI’s Subject Entries, Customs assessed a final 

antidumping duty rate of 216.01 percent. J.A. 10. IMSS 

timely protested the reliquidation, and the protest was denied by operation of law. Id.

On October 27, 2018, AFI timely filed suit before the

Court of International Trade challenging Customs’ denial 

of its protests. Id. On March 22, 2019, IMSS filed a similar 

suit. Id. On August 25, 2020, the Court of International 

Trade consolidated the two actions for purposes of discovery and briefing. J.A. 11. 

On November 12, 2020, the Government filed a motion 

for summary judgment and the parties’ joint statements of 

material facts. Id. That same day, IMSS responded to the 

Government’s motion for a protective order and moved to 

compel discovery regarding the date Customs was served 

with the Court of International Trade’s decision dismissing 

the AFMC litigation. Id. Thereafter, the court deferred

ruling on the motion for a protective order and stayed the 

Government’s response to IMSS’s motion to compel. Id.

On December 17, 2020, Appellants cross-moved for 

summary judgment in opposition to the Government’s motion. J.A. 12. On March 5, 2021, the court ordered additional briefing regarding what, if any, harm Appellants 

suffered from Customs’ alleged error of labeling the notices 

of reliquidation as notices of liquidation and, if there was 

an error, whether it was harmless. Id. On March 29, 2021, 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2022
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US 5

the court heard oral argument regarding the supplemental 

briefing. Id.

On April 9, 2021, the Court of International Trade issued final judgment, granting the government’s motion for 

summary judgment. J.A. 1. The Court of International 

Trade determined that the applicable date of notice under 

19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) was May 30, 2017, the date on which 

Commerce sent liquidation instructions to Customs. 

J.A. 23. The Court of International Trade also determined 

that its March 13, 2017, decision in the AFCM litigation 

did not provide unambiguous notice that the relevant injunction was lifted. J.A. 17–18. As such, the Court of International Trade denied Appellants’ request for discovery 

concerning when Customs received a copy of the Court of 

International Trade’s decision, reasoning that even if Customs received the decision before May 30, the decision did 

not provide the requisite notice. J.A. 18–19. The Court of 

International Trade also concluded that Customs’ error in 

labeling the notice regarding AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry as 

a liquidation instead of a reliquidation was harmless because that entry was liquidated or reliquidated within the 

relevant statutory period, and the effect was the same. 

J.A. 42.

Appellants timely appealed. This court has exclusive 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a grant of summary judgment by the Court 

of International Trade de novo. Kahrs Int’l v. United 

States, 713 F.3d 640, 643–44 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Although we 

apply a de novo standard of review, we give great weight to 

the informed opinion of the Court of International Trade. 

Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 07/28/2022
6 ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” U.S. CIT R. 56(a) (2015). A nonmoving party establishes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact only 

if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return 

a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).

DISCUSSION

When importing a good into the United States, a U.S. 

importer of record is required to use reasonable care in 

providing Customs with true and correct documentation 

regarding the value it declares for the imported merchandise. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484, 1485. Should a dispute arise with 

Customs as to the actual value of the entry, an interested 

party may challenge the value asserted by Customs by filing a protest. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 

287 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1675b).

When Customs determines that an entry is covered by 

an antidumping order, it suspends liquidation1 and notifies 

the importer of “determined or estimated” duties. 

19 U.S.C. § 159.58. When the suspension of liquidation is 

lifted, either by statute or court-order, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) 

establishes that Customs shall liquidate the relevant entry 

“within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from 

[Commerce], [an]other agency, or a court with jurisdiction 

over the entry.” Otherwise, the entry will be deemed liquidated “at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of 

duty asserted by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1504(d). In order for an entry to be deemed liquidated, 

the suspension of liquidation must have been removed;

Customs must have received notice of the removal of the 

1 “Liquidation” is defined as “the final computation 

or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or 

drawback entries.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1. 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 07/28/2022
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US 7

suspension; and Customs must not have liquidated the entry at issue within six months of receiving notice of the suspension removal. Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 384 F.3d 

1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. 

v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

We have interpreted § 1504 to require that a notice of 

removal of suspension of liquidation must be “unambiguous and public.” See id. at 1320. We have also clarified 

that the suspension of liquidation under 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(c)(2) cannot be lifted until the time for petitioning 

the Supreme Court for certiorari expires. Id. (citing Fujitsu, 283 F.3d at 1379). 

An entry that has been liquidated, or deemed liquidated by operation of law, may be voluntarily reliquidated 

by Customs pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1501 provided it is undertaken within 90 days from the date of the original liquidation. Section 1501 provides:

A liquidation made in accordance with section 1500 

or 1504 of this title or any reliquidation thereof 

made in accordance with this section may be reliquidated in any respect by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, notwithstanding the filing of a protest, 

within ninety days from the date of the original liquidation. Notice of such reliquidation shall be 

given or transmitted in the manner prescribed with 

respect to original liquidations under section 

1500(e) of this title.

19 U.S.C. § 1501 (emphasis added).

Notice

Appellants raise two principal arguments on appeal regarding notice. First, Appellants contend that the Court of 

International Trade erred in determining that there is no 

genuine dispute of material fact as to the date of notice under § 1504(d). Appellants’ Br. 16–21. Second, Appellants

argue that the Court of International Trade erred in

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 07/28/2022
8 ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US

denying discovery as to when Customs received a copy of 

the decision dismissing the AFMC litigation. Id.

The date of notice under § 1504(d) is relevant here because if the notice date was before May 24, 2017, then Customs erred with respect to its treatment of AFI’s Subject 

Entries by stating “liquidation” on the notice, instead of 

“reliquidation,” because those entries had already liquidated by operation of law. With respect to IMSS’s Subject 

Entry, if the notice date was before May 24, 2017, then all 

notices are untimely because each is outside the 6-month 

[§ 1504(d)] plus 90-day [§ 1501] statutory window. 

The core of the dispute regarding notice is whether the 

March 13 decision in the AMFC litigation gave unambiguous notice of the end of the injunction (which would lift suspension of liquidation). See Fujitsu, 283 F.3d at 1376 

(holding that there must be “an unambiguous and public 

starting point for the six-month liquidation period”). We 

conclude that the Court of International Trade correctly determined that its decision in the AFMC litigation did not

provide such unambiguous and public notice, and that 

there is no genuine dispute of fact as to the notice date. 

In its March 13 decision in the AFMC litigation, the 

Court of International Trade dismissed the case for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Am. Furniture Mfrs. Comm. 

for Legal Trade, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24, at *5–12. 

That decision did not discuss or address the injunction in 

any way and, as such, did not fulfill the statutory requirement that the notice be unambiguous. Accordingly, the 

Court of International Trade correctly denied discovery as 

to the date Customs received a copy of its decision because, 

even if Customs was served a copy, that decision did not 

constitute adequate notice. Instead, the Court of International Trade correctly determined, the first unambiguous 

notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation was

the May 30, 2017 liquidation instructions from Commerce 

to Customs. 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 07/28/2022
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US 9

Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, this 

court has never held that liquidation instructions cannot 

provide the statutorily required unambiguous and public 

notice. See Appellants’ Br. 19–21 (citing Int’l Trading Co. 

v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). In International Trading, this court held that, under the facts of 

that case, the first public and unambiguous notice of the 

removal of the suspension of liquidation was when Commerce published the final results of the relevant administrative review in the Federal Register. Int’l Trading, 

412 F.3d at 1313. In so holding, the court rejected the date 

on which Commerce sent liquidation instructions to Customs as the operative date of notice because Commerce’s

earlier publication in the Federal Register had already provided notice to Customs that the suspension of liquidation 

had lifted. Id. Nothing in that decision, or in our holding 

today, prevents or requires that notice be provided in the 

form of liquidation instructions from Commerce to Customs. Instead, the relevant event that triggers the date of 

notice is the first publication of an unambiguous and public 

notice that then becomes the starting point for the sixmonth liquidation period, whatever form that may take. 

See Int’l Trading, 281 F.3d at 1275. 

In this case, Commerce issued unambiguous liquidation instructions to Customs ending suspension of liquidation on May 30, 2017, shortly after suspension lifted on

May 12, 2017. No prior publication, including the decision 

in the AFMC Litigation, provided sufficient notice. See

J.A. 20. Accordingly, the Court of International Trade did 

not err in determining that there was no genuine dispute 

of material fact as to the date of notice.

Liquidation v. Reliquidation

Appellants further challenge the Court of International 

Trade’s determination that Customs’ mislabeling of a notice as “liquidation,” as opposed to “reliquidation,” was 

harmless error. Appellants’ Br. 21–26. We agree with 

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 07/28/2022
10 ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US

Appellants that the December 1, 2017 notice regarding 

AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry was erroneously labeled “liquidation.”2 However, Appellants make no cognizable allegation of harm. For example, § 1501 states explicitly that 

“[n]otice of such reliquidation shall be given or transmitted 

in the manner prescribed with respect to original liquidations under section 1500(e) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1501. 

Here, there are no allegations that the notice was deficient 

in any manner, except for the missing “re” in “reliquidation.”

Informed importers are aware that, under the established statutory scheme, Customs has six months from the 

notice of the removal of the suspension [§ 1504(d)] plus an 

additional 90 days from any liquidation or reliquidation

[§ 1501] to notify an importer of the “the final computation 

or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or 

drawback entries” [19 C.F.R. § 159.1]. Here, notice was 

provided within that window. Appellants had no expectation of finality at the time of any challenged notice. To be 

clear, we do not hold that cognizable harm cannot result 

from Customs mislabeling its key notices. Rather, we hold

that, in this case, Appellants have not alleged any such

harm. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of International Trade’s decision that the labeling error was harmless.

2 Similarly, it appears that Customs’ February 16, 

2018 notice regarding IMSS’s Subject Entry was also mislabeled as a “liquidation.” See J.A. 278. However, Appellants’ argument regarding mislabeling is limited to the 

December 1, 2017 notice regarding AFI’s Tenth Subject 

Entry, and we limit our review accordingly.

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 07/28/2022
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. US 11

CONCLUSION

We affirm the decision of the Court of International 

Trade. We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 07/28/2022