US Again Argues No Jurisdiction for Picture Frame Case
The U.S. filed another brief supporting its motion to dismiss a case involving the liquidation of entries that were the subject of a prior disclosure, which it argues the Court of International Trade has no jurisdiction to hear (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.
It again argued that the heart of the importer’s claims regards a prior disclosure, not CBP’s liquidation of the importer's entries, and it said that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) is also not proper because Larson-Juhl did not file its summons and complaint at the same time, as the statute requires.
Upon discovering it had missed AD/CVD orders on nine of its 2020-2021 entries, the Chinese picture frame importer, Larson-Juhl US, sent CBP a prior disclosure letter and more than $2 million to cover its unpaid dues. It asked CBP to suspend liquidation of its products and redesignate its entries from type 01 to type 03, as it intended to seek an administrative review for a separate rate, but the agency liquidated the entries anyway and again assessed duties -- for which Larson-Juhl brought the U.S. to court in March 2023 (see 2311070058).
The U.S. has argued -- and continues to argue -- that CIT has no jurisdiction over Larson-Juhl’s claims because the importer is contesting CBP’s acceptance of its prior disclosure, something not listed under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a) (see 2401100068). Regarding the importer’s claim about its ninth and final entry specifically, the government also argued that that claim had no standing because Larson-Juhl was not injured, having not paid duties for it.
Larson-Juhl incorrectly says it is bringing its claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)(5), which gives the court jurisdiction over disputes regarding “the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or reconciliation as to the issues contained therein, or any modification thereof,” DOJ said.
The sole effect of CBP’s acceptance of the prior disclosure “was to mitigate the amount of penalties incurred by the plaintiff … for improperly identifying the subject entries,” the government said. However, CBP didn't assess AD/CVD upon liquidation because the plaintiff wrongly declared its entries as type 01 instead of type 03, it said.
“Plaintiff’s argument cannot be reconciled with its agreement that no jurisdiction exists over the ninth protested entry,” it said. “Plaintiff agrees that no jurisdiction exists over the liquidation of the entry that was not covered by its prior disclosure, which only further illustrates that plaintiff is actually challenging CBP’s acceptance of the voluntary tender accompanying its prior disclosure.”
The true nature of Larson-Juhl’s complaint, therefore, is to contest CBP’s acceptance of its prior disclosure and the voluntary $2 million it paid before its entries were assessed, it said. It argued that the trade court has no jurisdiction over this sort of claim.
In its opposition brief, Larson-Juhl also argued that, alternatively, it should be allowed to amend its complaint to claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). This request is “improper,” DOJ said. To bring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), a plaintiff must file both its summons and complaint simultaneously, and Larson-Juhl didn't, it said.