'Bureaucratic Laziness' No Reason to Not Pay Out Delinquency Interest Under CDSOA, Importer Tells CAFC
CBP ignored Congress' "unambiguous express statutory command when it failed to distribute" interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, appellant Monterey Mushrooms said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Adee Honey Farms, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
"This is, fundamentally, a simple case," the domestic producer said. The only reason CBP did not distribute the delinquency interest was due to "'technological limitations' of its automated system," which failed to identify delinquency interest amounts attributable to CDSOA-subject duties, Monterey Mushrooms said. "Bureaucratic laziness in failing to make necessary technological changes or calculations cannot excuse Customs’ failure to follow the statute, and is certainly not entitled to deference," the brief said.
CBP also failed to publicly say why it didn't issue the delinquency interest, which is more evidence against the idea that the agency is owed deference on its decision, Monterey Mushrooms said. "As a result of Customs’ unlawful decision, the Government has unjustly enriched its own coffers at the expense of the intended beneficiaries of the statute," the affected domestic producers, the brief said.
CBP's "interpretation" does not qualify for Chevron deference given that the statute unambiguously requires the distribution of all interest earned on antidumping and countervailing duties, the brief said. "Customs’ arguments to this Court are merely obfuscation and post hoc rationalization for purposes of this litigation," Monterey Mushrooms said. CBP and CIT "have sought to overcomplicate the issues and substituted their own judgments for Congress’s. This Court must finally hold Customs accountable to the plain language of the statute."
The dispute centers on the interpretation of a few words in the statute, including CBP's determination that the phrase "interest earned on such duties" does not include delinquency interest. CIT said that interest accrued on the total amount owed on an already liquidated entry cannot be described as interest earned on the AD/CVD, given the concept of liquidation, which finalizes the amount due on an entry (see 2206160074). The U.S. echoed this argument in its initial reply, claiming that interest runs from the date cash deposits are paid until the date of liquidation (see 2302140060).
In its reply, Monterey Mushrooms said liquidation does not extinguish interest earned on AD/CV duties. "The Trade Court cited no authority for its determination that the duty amounts lose their individual character at liquidation," the brief said. "Nothing in the Tariff Act supports that determination."