Opinion ID: 209941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Antidumping Duty Determinations, Liquidation Instructions, and Liquidation

Text: This appeal requires careful distinction between the different challenges that an importer may bring against the United States in connection with the determination and assessment of antidumping duties. Accordingly, a brief review of the relevant legal framework is useful before we approach Shinyei's case. To protect domestic industries from unfair competition by imported products, United States law imposes a duty on dumped goods, that is, goods sold in this country at a price lower than they sell for in their home market. Fed.-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 63 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir.1995). If Commerce determines that a particular good is being dumped, and if the International Trade Commission also determines that the dumping has injured or threatens to injure a domestic industry, then Commerce issues an antidumping order, imposing a duty on the good equal to the difference between the foreign market value of the good and its United States price. Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1993). When an importer enters goods covered by an antidumping order, the importer generally must make a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a)(3). The final amount owed by the importer is not fixed, however, until the entry is liquidated. See 19 C.F.R § 159.1 (Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of the duties (not including vessel repair duties) or drawback accruing on an entry.). The final amount may vary from the amount deposited, because an interested party may request an administrative review of Commerce's antidumping order before liquidation occurs. See 19 U.S.C § 1675; see also Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997, 1000 (Fed.Cir.2003). Certain interested parties may also challenge Commerce's antidumping duty determinations in the Court of International Trade, and liquidation may be enjoined pending the outcome of an administrative review and litigation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Typically, once Commerce has finished its administrative review determination (and once any litigation under section 1516a has concluded), Commerce will send instructions to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to liquidate the entries made during the period of review covered by the determination. Because the Tariff Act provides that the final determination shall be the basis for the assessment of . . . antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(C), Commerce's liquidation instructions must correctly reflect the final administrative review determination so that the determination is the basis for the assessment at liquidation; if Commerce instructions are inaccurate or incorrect, Customs will liquidate the entries according to the improper instructions and the determination will not be the basis for the assessment of duties. Shinyei-CAFC(I), 355 F.3d at 1306. If an importer believes that the liquidation instructions issued by Commerce to Customs do not correctly reflect the final determination, the importer may challenge those instructions in the Court of International Trade under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See id.; Consol. Bearings, 348 F.3d at 1002. Once Customs receives liquidation instructions from Commerceand unless liquidation is enjoinedCustoms will actually liquidate the entries made during the review period covered by Commerce's determination, collect[ing] any increased duties due or refund[ing] any excess of the estimated duties deposited on entry. Wolff Shoe Co. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1116, 1118 (Fed.Cir.1998). By statute, Customs must complete liquidation of an entry within certain time limits. If Customs fails to do so, the entry is `deemed liquidated' (i.e., liquidated by operation of law), at the amount of duties deposited upon entry (i.e., without any increase or decrease from the estimated duties). Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1504). An importer who believes that Customs has erred in liquidating the importer's entries (for example, by collecting higher duties than were actually due) may file an administrative protest with Customs after liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514, 1515. If Customs denies the protest, the importer may contest the denial in the Court of International Trade. See 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Keeping in mind this framework, and the distinctions between and among a challenge to Commerce's antidumping duty determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, a challenge to Commerce's liquidation instructions under the APA, and a challenge to Customs' denial of a liquidation protest brought under 19 U.S.C §§ 1514 and 1515, we now turn to Shinyei's case.