US Argues CIT Lacks Jurisdiction in Case on Liquidations Prompted by Prior Disclosure
On Jan. 8, the U.S. moved to dismiss an importer’s claim contesting CBP's decision to liquidate nine of its picture frame moulding entries, saying the Court of International Trade lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the liquidations were related to the importer's prior disclosure (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).
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.
The “true nature” of importer Larson-Juhl’s claim about eight of the entries, DOJ said, was actually CBP's acceptance of the importer’s prior disclosure and voluntary tender payment, and “the Court does not possess jurisdiction over those entries.” DOJ added that CIT likewise has no jurisdiction over the ninth entry because Larson-Juhls suffered no injury from it.
Larson-Juhls is challenging CBP’s denial of its administrative protest concerning the liquidation and assessment of duties on its entries (see 2303310056). After realizing it had missed an AD order covering its products when entering its goods, the importer paid CBP more than $2 million and submitted a prior disclosure letter to the agency asking CBP to suspend liquidation and redesignate its entries from type 01 to type 03. CBP didn't do so, however. The agency liquidated the entries before Larson-Juhl could request an administrative review in an attempt to lower its assessed AD/CVD rates.
Larson-Juhls argued CIT had jurisdiction over its case under 28 USC 1581(a), which allows the court to hear any claim brought to contest CBP’s denial of an administrative protest, DOJ said. It said that, specifically, the importer’s complaint “identifies CBP’s decisions to liquidate each of the subject entries without the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties as the protestable decisions under section 1514(a)(5).”
However, Larson-Juhls actually seeks to challenge CBP’s choice to accept its prior disclosure and “accompanying voluntary tender,” a “separate and distinct decision from the liquidation of its entries,” DOJ said. This claim couldn't be brought to CBP as an administrative protest; therefore, it also cannot be heard in CIT, the department said.
“To clarify, CBP’s acceptance of plaintiff’s prior disclosure would mitigate the penalties plaintiff incurred for its section 1592 violation but would not by itself constitute a protestable decision under section 1514(a),” it said. “Nor does CBP’s acceptance of the prior disclosure and the accompanying voluntary tender independently qualify as a liquidation or reliquidation that results in the Court’s jurisdiction.”
DOJ also said Larson-Juhls has not suffered injury in regard to its final entry, as the importer didn't pay any AD/CVD on it.