Court Opinion

ID: 9963141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:02:10.273649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:45.885427
License: Public Domain

SlipȱOp.ȱ24Ȭśŗȱ

             UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ

 COLUMBIAȱALUMINUMȱPRODUCTS,ȱ
 LLC,ȱ

                           Plaintiff,ȱ
                                                 ȱȱBefore:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
                    v.ȱ
                                                 ȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ
 UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ

                           Defendant.ȱ

                                          OPINIONȱ

      [Sustainingȱremandȱredeterminationȱinȱlitigationȱcontestingȱanȱagencyȱ
   determinationȱofȱ“evasion”ȱofȱantidumpingȱdutyȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorders]ȱ

                                                                         Dated:ȱAprilȱŘŚ,ȱ2024ȱ

       JeremyȱW.ȱDutra,ȱSquireȱPattonȱBoggsȱ(US)ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱ
plaintiff.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwasȱPeterȱJ.ȱKoenig.ȱ

       AlexanderȱJ.ȱVanderweide,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱ
CivilȱDivision,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱN.Y.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱ
onȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱJustinȱR.ȱMiller,ȱAttorneyȬinȬCharge,ȱandȱAimeeȱLee,ȱAssistantȱ
Director,ȱInternationalȱTradeȱFieldȱOffice.ȱȱAlsoȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱ
Boynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱ
CommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱ
Washington,ȱD.C.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwasȱTamariȱJ.ȱLagvilava,ȱAttorney,ȱ
OfficeȱofȱChiefȱCounsel,ȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtection,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ

      Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiffȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProducts,ȱLLCȱ(“Columbia”)ȱ

contestedȱtwoȱrelatedȱdecisionsȱthatȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱ(“Customs”ȱorȱ

“CBP”)ȱissuedȱunderȱtheȱEnforceȱandȱProtectȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1517ȱ(2018)ȱ(theȱ“EAPA”).ȱȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                 Pageȱ2ȱ

Inȱbothȱdecisions,ȱCustomsȱdeterminedȱthatȱdoorȱthresholdsȱColumbiaȱimportedȱfromȱ

Vietnamȱwereȱ“coveredȱmerchandise”ȱthatȱevadedȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ(“AD”)ȱorderȱ

andȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱorderȱ(theȱ“Orders”)ȱonȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱfromȱ

theȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina.ȱ

       Inȱaȱredeterminationȱissuedȱearlierȱthisȱyearȱinȱresponseȱtoȱanȱorderȱofȱtheȱcourt,ȱ

CustomsȱconcludedȱthatȱColumbia’sȱimportedȱdoorȱthresholdsȱdidȱnotȱevadeȱtheȱ

Ordersȱandȱinformedȱtheȱcourtȱofȱitsȱintentionȱtoȱdiscontinueȱtheȱ“interimȱmeasures”ȱitȱ

earlierȱimposedȱonȱColumbia’sȱimportsȱofȱdoorȱthresholdsȱfromȱVietnam.ȱȱPlaintiffȱ

advocatesȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱsustainȱCBP’sȱdecisionȱthatȱColumbia’sȱimportsȱdidȱnotȱevadeȱ

theȱOrdersȱbutȱobjectsȱtoȱtheȱredeterminationȱtoȱtheȱextentȱthatȱitȱwouldȱnotȱresultȱinȱ

liquidationȱofȱtheȱaffectedȱimportȱentriesȱpriorȱtoȱaȱfinalȱandȱconclusiveȱcourtȱdecisionȱinȱ

thisȱaction.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱsustainsȱCBP’sȱredetermination.ȱ

                                     I. BACKGROUND

       Backgroundȱonȱthisȱlitigationȱisȱsetȱforthȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpreviousȱopinionȱandȱ

orderȱandȱisȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProducts,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ

2024ȱWLȱ257026ȱ(Jan.ȱ16,ȱ2024)ȱ(“ColumbiaȱI”).ȱȱInȱColumbiaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱorderedȱCustomsȱ

toȱ“submitȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱaȱRedeterminationȱuponȱRemandȱthatȱisȱconsistentȱwithȱthisȱ

OpinionȱandȱOrderȱandȱaddressesȱtheȱactionsȱitȱwillȱtakeȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱInterimȱ

Measuresȱitȱpreviouslyȱimposed.”ȱȱId.,ȱ2024ȱWLȱatȱ*13.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                    Pageȱ3ȱ

       BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱCBP’sȱFinalȱ“RemandȱRedetermination”ȱ(Feb.ȱ15,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱ

No.ȱ86ȱ(“RemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱPlaintiffȱfiledȱcommentsȱonȱtheȱRemandȱ

Redetermination.ȱȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProducts,ȱLLC’sȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱ

Redeterminationȱ(Feb.ȱ24,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ87ȱ(“Columbia’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȱ

respondedȱtoȱthoseȱcomments.ȱȱDef.’sȱResponseȱtoȱPl.’sȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱ

Redeterminationȱ(Mar.ȱ5,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ88ȱ(“Def.’sȱResponse”).ȱ

                                       II. DISCUSSION

       InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCustomsȱconcludedȱ“thatȱColumbiaȱcorrectlyȱ

enteredȱmerchandiseȱasȱentryȱtypeȱ“01”ȱconsumptionȱentries,ȱinsteadȱofȱasȱentryȱtypeȱ

“03”ȱAD/CVDȱentriesȱand,ȱaccordingly,ȱnoȱAD/CVDȱdutiesȱareȱapplicable.”ȱȱRemandȱ

Redeterminationȱatȱ6.ȱȱCustomsȱconcluded,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱ“[t]hus,ȱColumbiaȱdidȱnotȱenterȱ

coveredȱmerchandiseȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱthroughȱmaterialȱfalseȱstatementsȱorȱ

omissions.”ȱȱCustomsȱstatedȱthatȱ“[g]ivenȱthisȱreversalȱofȱtheȱMarchȱ2019ȱDeterminationȱ

andȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱ[theȱagencyȱdecisionsȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigation1],ȱCBPȱ

intendsȱtoȱterminateȱtheȱinterimȱmeasuresȱimposedȱonȱMayȱ17,ȱ2018ȱandȱprocessȱ

refundsȱofȱanyȱcashȱdeposits,ȱasȱappropriate,ȱonceȱjudgmentȱisȱenteredȱinȱthisȱmatter.”ȱȱ

       1ȱNoticeȱofȱFinalȱDeterminationȱasȱtoȱEvasionȱ(Mar.ȱ20,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ61;ȱEnforceȱ
andȱProtectȱActȱ(“EAPA”)ȱCaseȱNumberȱ7232ȱ(Aug.ȱ26,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ67.ȱȱCitationsȱ
hereinȱtoȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Apr.ȱ28,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ83ȱ(conf.),ȱ82ȱ
(public)ȱareȱreferencedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__”ȱforȱpublicȱversions.ȱȱAllȱinformationȱ
disclosedȱinȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrderȱisȱpublicȱinformation.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                    Pageȱ4ȱ

Id.ȱatȱ6—7.ȱȱCustomsȱaddedȱthatȱ“[a]nyȱunliquidatedȱentriesȱwillȱbeȱliquidatedȱ

consistentȱwithȱtheȱfinalȱandȱconclusiveȱcourtȱdecisionȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱincludingȱallȱ

remandsȱandȱappeals.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7.ȱȱTheȱ“interimȱmeasures”ȱtoȱwhichȱCustomsȱreferredȱ

“includedȱ‘rateȬadjusting’ȱtheȱentriesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱforȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱcashȱdeposits,ȱrequiringȱ

‘liveȱentry’ȱforȱ‘allȱfutureȱimportsȱofȱproductsȱbelievedȱtoȱbeȱaluminumȱthresholdsȱbyȱ

Columbia’ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱextendingȱandȱsuspendingȱliquidationȱofȱentries.”ȱȱColumbiaȱI,ȱ2024ȱ

WLȱ257026ȱatȱ*2ȱ(quotingȱNoticeȱofȱInitiationȱofȱInvestigationȱandȱInterimȱMeasuresȱatȱ6—7ȱ

(Mayȱ17,ȱ2018),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ18).ȱ

       Columbiaȱagreesȱinȱpart,ȱandȱdisagreesȱinȱpart,ȱwithȱtheȱRemandȱ

Redetermination.ȱȱColumbiaȱstatesȱthatȱitȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱagency’sȱdecidingȱ“thatȱ

ColumbiaȱdidȱnotȱenterȱcoveredȱmerchandiseȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱbyȱmeansȱofȱ

evasion”ȱandȱ“requestsȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱsustainȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱofȱnoȱ

evasionȱandȱenterȱjudgmentȱinȱColumbia’sȱfavor.”ȱȱColumbia’sȱCommentsȱ1.ȱȱAtȱtheȱ

sameȱtime,ȱColumbiaȱobjectsȱthatȱ“[h]avingȱmadeȱaȱnegativeȱdetermination,ȱCBPȱstatesȱ

thatȱitȱintendsȱtoȱterminateȱinterimȱmeasuresȱimplementedȱonȱMayȱ17,ȱ2018.”ȱȱId.ȱȱ“Thisȱ

suggestsȱthatȱinterimȱmeasuresȱagainstȱColumbiaȱremainȱinȱplaceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcontraryȱtoȱCBPȱ

regulations,ȱwhichȱrequireȱimmediateȱterminationȱofȱinterimȱmeasuresȱuponȱaȱnegativeȱ

findingȱofȱevasion.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1Ȭ2ȱ(citingȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ165.27(c)).ȱȱFurther,ȱColumbiaȱobjectsȱtoȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                    Pageȱ5ȱ

anyȱdelayȱinȱtheȱliquidationȱofȱunliquidatedȱentriesȱthatȱareȱaffectedȱbyȱthisȱlitigation,ȱ

arguingȱasȱfollows:ȱ

       CBPȱfurtherȱindicatesȱthatȱitȱwillȱliquidateȱanyȱunliquidatedȱentriesȱ
       followingȱaȱfinalȱandȱconclusiveȱcourtȱdecision,ȱincludingȱallȱremandsȱandȱ
       appeals.ȱȱRespectfully,ȱthereȱwillȱbeȱnoȱappealȱhere.ȱȱColumbiaȱsucceededȱ
       inȱitsȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱevasionȱdetermination.ȱȱTheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
       moreover,ȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱitsȱfindingȱofȱnoȱevasionȱunderȱprotest.ȱȱAndȱ
       Endura,ȱtheȱinstigatorȱofȱthisȱmatter,ȱabandonedȱanyȱparticipationȱatȱtheȱ
       CourtȱorȱbeforeȱCBP,ȱthusȱwaivingȱanyȱrightȱtoȱappeal.ȱȱButȱforȱtheȱinterimȱ
       measures,ȱallȱColumbiaȱentriesȱsuspendedȱbyȱCBPȱwouldȱhaveȱliquidatedȱ
       overȱfourȱyearsȱago.ȱUnderȱtheȱcircumstances,ȱColumbiaȱrequestsȱthatȱtheȱ
       CourtȱorderȱCBPȱtoȱterminateȱimmediatelyȱinterimȱmeasuresȱandȱliquidateȱ
       allȱpreviouslyȱsuspendedȱentriesȱuponȱtheȱCourt’sȱentryȱofȱjudgment.ȱ

Id.ȱ

       InȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱColumbia’sȱcomments,ȱdefendantȱcontestsȱColumbia’sȱ

assertionȱthatȱ“CBPȱhasȱnotȱabidedȱbyȱitsȱregulations,”ȱpointingȱoutȱthatȱtheȱregulationȱ

onȱwhichȱColumbiaȱrelies,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ165.27(c)ȱ(2023),ȱprovidesȱasȱfollows:ȱ“IfȱCBPȱ

makesȱaȱdeterminationȱunderȱparagraphȱ(a)ȱofȱthisȱsectionȱthatȱcoveredȱmerchandiseȱ

wasȱnotȱenteredȱintoȱtheȱcustomsȱterritoryȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱthroughȱevasion,ȱthenȱ

CBPȱwillȱceaseȱapplyingȱanyȱinterimȱmeasuresȱtakenȱunderȱ§ȱ165.24ȱandȱliquidateȱtheȱ

entriesȱinȱtheȱnormalȱcourse.’”ȱȱDef.’sȱResponseȱ5ȱ(quotingȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ165.27(c)).ȱ

       Columbia’sȱobjectionȱthatȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ165.27(c)ȱrequiredȱCustomsȱtoȱterminateȱtheȱ

interimȱmeasuresȱimmediatelyȱuponȱaȱnegativeȱfindingȱofȱevasion,ȱi.e.,ȱuponȱCBP’sȱ

issuingȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱisȱnotȱpersuasive.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                   Pageȱ6ȱ

whichȱwasȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorder,ȱisȱsubmittedȱforȱtheȱcourt’sȱreviewȱandȱ

isȱnotȱinȱeffectȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱsustainingȱitȱthroughȱtheȱentryȱofȱjudgment.ȱȱInȱ

accordanceȱwithȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱwillȱorderȱCustomsȱtoȱ

terminateȱimmediatelyȱallȱinterimȱmeasuresȱitȱimposedȱinȱtheȱEAPAȱinvestigation.ȱȱToȱ

effectuateȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱalsoȱwillȱdirectȱthatȱCustomsȱnotȱ

requireȱtheȱfilingȱofȱentryȱtypeȱ“03”ȱentriesȱonȱfutureȱimportsȱofȱdoorȱthresholdsȱfromȱ

VietnamȱthatȱareȱofȱaȱclassȱorȱkindȱthatȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱEAPAȱ

investigationȱandȱnotȱrequireȱtheȱdepositȱofȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱonȱ

theseȱfutureȱentries.ȱ

       Withȱrespectȱtoȱallȱentriesȱaffectedȱbyȱthisȱlitigationȱthatȱwereȱmadeȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱ

entryȱofȱjudgment,ȱColumbiaȱisȱentitled,ȱuponȱtheȱentryȱofȱjudgment,ȱtoȱreceiveȱaȱ

promptȱrefundȱofȱallȱestimatedȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱthatȱwereȱ

deposited,ȱwithȱinterestȱasȱprovidedȱbyȱlaw.ȱȱButȱColumbiaȱhasȱnotȱmadeȱtheȱcaseȱforȱ

theȱcourt’sȱorderingȱimmediateȱliquidationȱofȱtheȱentriesȱaffectedȱbyȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ

       ColumbiaȱcorrectlyȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱCustomsȱdidȱnotȱreachȱitsȱnegativeȱ

determinationȱofȱevasionȱ“underȱprotest.”ȱȱColumbia’sȱCommentsȱ2.ȱȱAlso,ȱdefendantȱ

statesȱthatȱ“weȱenvisionȱthatȱnoȱappealȱwillȱbeȱtakenȱhere.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResponseȱ5.ȱȱ

Nevertheless,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱnotȱconvincedȱthatȱitȱshouldȱorderȱimmediateȱliquidationȱofȱ

theȱaffectedȱentries,ȱaȱremedyȱprovidedȱforȱneitherȱinȱtheȱEAPAȱnorȱinȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00185ȱ                                                                  Pageȱ7ȱ

§ 165.27(c).ȱȱMoreover,ȱwhetherȱtheȱgovernment’sȱissuingȱtheȱnegativeȱEAPA

determinationȱabsentȱaȱprotestȱwillȱprecludeȱtheȱgovernment’sȱsuccessfulȱappealȱofȱaȱ

judgmentȱinȱthisȱactionȱisȱaȱquestionȱforȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱ

(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”),ȱnotȱthisȱCourt,ȱtoȱdecide.ȱȱAdditionally,ȱwhetherȱliquidationȱofȱtheȱ

entriesȱaffectedȱbyȱthisȱlitigationȱeffectivelyȱwouldȱmootȱanyȱappealȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱ

ofȱaȱjudgmentȱinȱthisȱactionȱisȱanȱunsettledȱquestion.ȱȱDefendantȱhasȱnotȱruledȱoutȱtheȱ

possibilityȱthatȱitȱwillȱappeal,ȱandȱtheȱcourtȱwillȱavoidȱtakingȱanȱactionȱthatȱcouldȱmootȱ

anyȱappealȱofȱthisȱCourt’sȱjudgmentȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱmightȱpursue.ȱ

       Finally,ȱColumbiaȱhasȱnotȱshownȱitȱwillȱbeȱprejudicedȱbyȱaȱdelayȱinȱtheȱ

liquidationȱofȱtheȱaffectedȱentriesȱpendingȱaȱfinalȱandȱconclusiveȱjudgmentȱinȱthisȱ

action.ȱȱColumbiaȱisȱawardedȱallȱtheȱreliefȱonȱitsȱfutureȱentriesȱthatȱthisȱcourtȱmayȱgrantȱ

andȱwillȱreceiveȱanȱadequateȱremedyȱasȱtoȱpastȱentriesȱprovidedȱitȱpromptlyȱreceivesȱaȱ

refundȱofȱallȱestimatedȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱthatȱwereȱdepositedȱonȱ

theseȱentries,ȱwithȱinterestȱasȱprovidedȱbyȱlaw.ȱ

       ToȱensureȱthatȱColumbiaȱreceivesȱanȱadequateȱremedyȱevenȱshouldȱliquidationȱ

beȱdelayedȱpendingȱappeal,ȱtheȱcourtȱwillȱorderȱthatȱCustomsȱnotȱliquidateȱwithȱtheȱ

assessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱanyȱentriesȱofȱmerchandiseȱthatȱisȱ

ofȱtheȱsameȱclassȱorȱkindȱasȱtheȱmerchandiseȱthatȱwasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱEAPAȱ

investigationȱpriorȱtoȱaȱfinalȱandȱconclusiveȱjudgmentȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱwillȱ