Target Asks CAFC for More Time to File Reply Due to Holidays
Big box retailer Target Corp. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for more time to file its reply brief in its suit against the Court of International Trade's decision to order reliquidation of Target's entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. While the brief is currently due on Jan. 5, 2024, Target asked if it could submit its arguments on Jan. 19 "due largely to the circumstances of the holidays" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
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.
Between the government's reply brief and the date Target's reply is due, there are six weekend days and two federal holidays, "for a total of eight days out of the 21 days allowed for the filing of a reply brief," the retailer said. "This would be insufficient time" for Target's counsel to prepare the reply, the brief claimed, noting that the government consents to the extension motion.
Target's case comes from a matter previously settled by the trade court and the Federal Circuit, Home Products v. U.S., in which the appellate court upheld CIT's order to reliquidate the ironing table imports. In that case, CBP erroneously liquidated 224 of the entries, 40 of which were Target's. CBP alerted the court to the error and was granted a redo despite the 90-day reliquidation being closed. Target wasn't allowed to intervene in the Home Products suit, and so brought its own case, arguing that the CAFC's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. barred reliquidation.
In its reply, the government claimed that the trade court wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame (see 2312150050). The U.S. distinguished the case from Cemex, in which the appellate court barred reliquidation.