Opinion ID: 209941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: We Reverse and Remand for Further Proceedings

Text: Shinyei appealed the Court of International Trade's dismissal of the '130 case for lack of jurisdiction, and on January 20, 2004, we reversed. See Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1297. We reviewed our earlier statement in Zenith Radio that once liquidation occurs, a subsequent decision by the trial court on the merits of Zenith's challenge [to Commerce's determination of a duty rate under section 516A of the Tariff Act] can have no effect on the dumping duties assessed on [Zenith's entries], 710 F.2d at 810, and we explained that this holding was explicitly based on the liquidation and injunction provisions in section 516A. Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1309. [2] Here, since Shinyei did not challenge Commerce's duty determination under section 516A of the Tariff Act, but rather challenged Commerce's liquidation instructions as inconsistent with an antidumping duty determination that Shinyei conceded to be correct, we explained that our holding in Zenith Radio was simply inapplicable. See id. (a challenge to Commerce instructions on the ground that they do not correctly implement the published, amended administrative review results, `is not an action defined under section 516A of the Tariff Act' (quoting Consol. Bearings, 348 F.3d at 1002)); see also Mukand Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 502 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2007) ([O]ur recent decision in [ Shinyei-CAFC(I) ] makes clear that the effect of liquidation under the injunction and liquidation provisions of section 516a does not divest the Court of International Trade of section 1581(i)(4) jurisdiction over an otherwise proper action for reliquidation.). We held in Shinyei-CAFC(I) that despite Customs' actual liquidation of Shinyei's entries (pursuant to Commerce's clean-up instructions), the Court of International Trade retained jurisdiction over Shinyei's '130 case under 28 U.S.C § 1581(i)(4), the court's catch-all jurisdictional provision, covering challenges to Commerce's administration and enforcement of duty laws. 355 F.3d at 1305. We also held that Shinyei had a cause of action under the APA and that nothing in the trade laws precluded the relief requested by Shinyei for Commerce's alleged errornew instructions from Commerce to Customs to reliquidate Shinyei's entries. Remanding the case, we wrote that [t]he Court of International Trade must reach the merits of Shinyei's case to determine if Shinyei is indeed entitled to the requested relief. Id. at 1311. Notably, we declined to reach the issue of deemed liquidation, because the trial court had not decided the issue and because the parties concede[d] that the subject entries were actually liquidated. Id. at 1308 n. 5. Also of note, we explained that because Shinyei filed the '130 case before actual liquidation of its entries, the trial court was incorrect to refer to Shinyei as a party who sleep[s] on their rights and permit[s] liquidation to occur. Id. at 1309 (quoting Shinyei-CIT(I), 248 F.Supp.2d at 1360).