NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1216 AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES Defendant-Appellee, and AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE,

CABINET MAKERS, MILLMEN, AND IN DUSTRIAL CARPENTERS LOCAL 721, CARPENTERS INDUSTRIAL UNION LOCAL 2093, IUE INDUSTRIAL DIVISION OF CWA LOCAL 82472, TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHO USEMEN, AND HELPERS LOCAL 991, UBC SOUTHERN COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LOCAL 2305, UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 193U, and VAUGHAN-BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Mark E. Pardo , Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appel lant. With him on the brief was William F. Marshall , of New York, New York. Michael J. Dierberg , Attorney, Commercial Litigat ion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee, United States. On the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director, and Michael D. Panzera , Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was Natasha C. Robinson , Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. J. Michael Taylor , King & Spalding LLP, of Wa shington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees, American Furniture Manufacturers Co mmittee for Legal Trade, et al. Appealed from: United States C ourt of International Trade Judge Donald C. PogueNote: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1216

AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE,

CABINET MAKERS, MILLMEN, AND IN DUSTRIAL CARPENTERS LOCAL 721, CARPENTERS INDUSTRIAL UNION LOCAL 2093, IUE INDUSTRIAL DIVISION OF CWA LOCAL 82472, TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHO USEMEN, AND HELPERS LOCAL 991, UBC SOUTHERN COUNCIL OF I NDUSTRIAL WORKERS LOCAL 2305, UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 193U, and VAUGHAN-BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

_________ __________________ DECIDED: November 30, 2007

_________ __________________ Before RADER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and MOORE, Circuit Judge

. MOORE, Circuit Judge

. American Signature, In c. (ASI) appeals from a decision of the Court of International Trade dismissing ASI’s compla int for lack of jurisdiction. American Signature, Inc. v. United States , 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). Wereverse the trial court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND In December 2003, Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Due to ministerial errors, a few months after publis hing its preliminary determination of cash deposit rates, Commerce published an amended preliminary determination to correct those errors (the rate went from 19.24% to 11.85%). Accordingly, Commerce issued revised instructions to Customs to collect cash deposits at the am ended rates, but only for entries on or after the dat e of publication of the amended preliminary determination. Fairmont Designs, an importer of wooden b edroom furniture from the PRC, submitted case briefing requesting that Commerce make it s instructions to Customs retroactive to the date that the preliminar y determination was published. In its final determination, Commerce calculated final antidumping ma rgin rates and stated that parties who wished to “obtain accurate assessment of duties where they believe there is a difference between the deposit of estimated antidumping duties and final assessment of antidumping duties” should do so through an adm inistrative review process. Again, Commerce’s rate determination was erron eous. Recognizing the errors, Commerce issued an amended final determination reducing the rate from 16.70% to 7.87%. However, in its liquidation instructions, issu ed according to the “automatic assessment” provision of 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(c)(1), Comm erce directed Customs to assess duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry. As a result, for entries between the date of the prelimin ary determination and the amended preliminary determination, and

2007-1216 2for entries between the date of the fi nal determination and the amended final determination, duties were assessed at the ca sh deposit rates erroneously calculated by Commerce. In short, although Commerce adm itted errors in its calculated dumping margins, it did not correct for the overpayment of cash deposits when it issued liquidation instructions. ASI, an importer of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, brought suit against the government in the Court of Internati onal Trade pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4), challenging the failure of Co mmerce’s liquidation instructions to retroactively apply the reduced margin rates and reimburse for cash deposit overpayments. The trial court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction concluding that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) was improper. The true nature of ASI’s claim, according to the trial court, was a challenge to Comme rce’s underlying final determination and as such it should have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). ANALYSIS We review the decision of t he Court of International Trade to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction de novo. See Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) confers jurisdiction upon the Court of International Trade for claims against the Unit ed States arising out of any law providing for “administration and enforce ment” with respect to, among others, the imposition of import duties. In Consolidated Bearings Co. v. United States , we held that liquidation instructions concern the administratio n and enforcement of Commerce’s final

2007-1216 32007-1216 4 determination and are therefor e properly reviewed under § 1581(i)(4). 348 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A]n ac tion challenging Commerce’s liquidation instructions is not a challenge to the final results, but a challenge to the ‘administration and enforcement’ of those final results.”). The government alleges that the true nature of ASI’s claim is a challenge to Commerce’s underlying final determination, not the liquidation instructions, given that Commerce rejected Fairmont Designs’ reques t for retroactive application of the amended deposit rates. According to the government, ASI’s claim should have been brought under 28 U.S. C. § 1581(c), which confers ju risdiction on the Court of International Trade for adjudicating final revi ewable determinations under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. Because § 1581(i) is a residual jurisdictional provision that is not available when claims are properly brought under other jurisd ictional provisions, and because ASI’s 30- day statutory time limit for bringing a clai m under § 1581(c) has passed, the government argues that ASI’s claim must be dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction. We do not agree. The mere fact that Commerce addressed the implementation of antidumping rates in its final determinati on does not make the implementation itself a reviewable determination under § 1516a. T he true nature of ASI’s claim remains a challenge to Commerce’s liquidation instruct ions. In light of Consolidated Bearings , we reverse the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand this case for further proceedings.