Federal Circuit Confirms Limits to the Suspension of Liquidation in Scope Disputes

Jun 6, 2019

Reading Time : 6 min

The U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) possess complimentary, yet distinct responsibilities in enforcing the scope of an order. Upon request or its own initiative, Commerce may issue a ruling that interprets a scope to determine an order’s coverage. Meridian Prods., Inc. v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In so doing, Commerce must always follow the unambiguous terms of a scope. See id. However, if Commerce finds the scope terms ambiguous, it must consult the regulatory factors in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) and, under certain circumstances, 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). If Commerce determines that an import falls within the scope of an order, it then instructs CBP to execute a ministerial function: suspend the liquidation of the import at issue and require cash deposits as security for such imports. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(1)–(4). “Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1.

Scope issues, however, do not always get resolved in such a linear fashion. On some occasions, CBP will treat certain entries as within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order without the benefit of a Commerce scope ruling on the merchandise in question. In this scenario, questions arise as to how soon suspension of the entries’ liquidation may occur, given that Commerce has not yet spoken on the matter. In Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit  recently confirmed certain limits on the suspension of liquidation in the scenario described above.

The dispute has a complicated backstory. CBP had initially made its own independent determination that Sunpreme’s imported solar modules fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain solar products from China. The trade bar commonly refers to these orders as the Solar I Orders. Sunpreme challenged CBP’s action by filing suit at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), arguing that CBP exceeded its authority by determining whether an import fell within the scope of an order. After years of litigation, the Federal Circuit dismissed the suit, holding that Sunpreme could have an adequate remedy—i.e., a lawsuit challenging an adverse scope ruling issued by Commerce—under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), such that the CIT lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).

As it turns out, Sunpreme had pursued parallel relief from Commerce in a scope inquiry at the same time that it filed its initial suit at the CIT. Commerce ruled against Sunpreme and instructed CBP to continue its suspension of the entries’ liquidation, including for imports that entered prior to the initiation of Commerce’s scope ruling. Sunpreme sought review before the CIT. Judge Kelly upheld Commerce’s scope ruling on the merits, but she also ruled that Commerce unlawfully instructed CBP to suspend the liquidation of imports that entered prior to the initiation of the scope inquiry. Sunpreme and the government separately appealed both aspects of Judge Kelly’s opinion to the Federal Circuit, which brings us to the recent Sunpreme opinion.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Judge Clevenger first held that Commerce properly found Sunpreme’s solar modules within the scope of the Solar I Orders. Slip Op. at 12–23. Nothing meaningful to report here from this fact-specific exercise based on analysis of Commerce’s findings against the scope terms and the regulatory factors in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Id.

The majority also agreed with the CIT that Commerce could not instruct CBP to suspend the liquidation of Sunpreme’s imports prior to the initiation of the scope inquiry, regardless of whether CBP on its own initiative had started to suspend the entries and require collection of cash deposits prior to the initiation of the scope inquiry. Id. at 23–30. Here, the majority turned to Commerce’s regulations on the suspension of liquidation in scope proceedings. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(1)–(4). In simple terms, if Commerce conducts a scope inquiry of an import that already is subject to suspension of liquidation, that suspension remains in place during the scope proceeding. Id. § 351.225(l)(1). If Commerce issues a final scope ruling that the product is not within the scope of the order and the import already is subject to suspension, then Commerce must end any existing suspension of liquidation and instruct CBP to refund cash deposits. Id. § 351.225(l)(3). If Commerce issues a final scope ruling that the product is within the scope of an order and no suspension of liquidation is in place, then Commerce must instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and collect the requisite cash deposits “for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the scope inquiry.” Id.

The question here is whether CBP’s decision to suspend Sunpreme’s imports on its own initiative prior to the initiation of the scope inquiry, based on its own interpretation of the scope at issue, was legally sufficient for the imports to be already suspended for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(1). The majority reasoned that if “the suspensions of liquidation . . . were ultra vires acts by [CBP], and therefore of no legal effect, then it is clear that no suspensions of liquidation existed to be ‘continued’ during the scope inquiry in this case under” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(1). Slip Op. at 24. Because CBP exceeded its authority by interpreting the ambiguous terms of the scope at issue, the majority concluded that Sunpreme’s imports were not previously suspended for purposes of 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(1). As a result, the majority held that Commerce could only instruct CBP to suspend the liquidation of Sunpreme’s imports as of the date that Commerce initiated the scope inquiry, consistent with 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(l)(3). The majority nicely summarized its conclusion in the following passage:

[b]ased on our existing case law, we can see no reason why [CBP], which we have recognized plays a ministerial role in the liquidation process and lacks the authority in the first instance to interpret the scope of unclear or ambiguous duty orders, should have more power than its charging agency—Commerce—to order suspension of liquidation.

[CBP] cannot clarify or interpret duty orders in the first instance. [CBP] can determine if merchandise is covered by a clear or unambiguous duty order and suspend liquidation before a scope inquiry because such actions do not require clarification or interpretation of the duty order. Commerce can continue that suspension of liquidation following its own assessment. But Commerce cannot order suspension of liquidation pre-scope inquiry for merchandise possibly subject to an unclear or ambiguous duty order. We now hold that neither can [CBP] because allowing it to do so would permit [CBP] in the first instance to clarify or interpret the ambiguity in the duty order so as to place merchandise within its scope.

Ambiguity is the line that separates lawful ministerial acts from unlawful ultra vires acts by [CBP].

Id. at 27. Notably, in reaching this conclusion, the majority rebuffs the oft-repeated concerns over “evasion” and “circumvention” advanced by the United States and Solar World. Id. at 28–30.

In dissent, Chief Judge Prost agreed with the majority’s conclusion that Sunpreme’s imports fall within the scope of the Solar I Orders, but disagreed with the majority on the liquidation instructions issue. Dissent at 1–9.

Bottom Line: The Federal Circuit’s decision in Sunpreme establishes concrete guideposts for Commerce, CBP and importers in disputes over the suspension of liquidation. If the scope of an order is unambiguous, CBP may suspend the liquidation of entries that fall within that scope at any time. If the scope of an order is ambiguous, however, neither Commerce nor CBP may suspend the liquidation of those entries until Commerce determines that the imports fall within the terms of that scope. Even in that scenario, Commerce may only instruct CBP to suspend the liquidation of those entries as of the date that Commerce initiated the scope inquiry.

These new rules undoubtedly will necessitate a dramatic change in current CBP practice. Before Sunpreme, CBP would and could suspend the liquidation of entries and tell importers to seek a scope ruling from Commerce, even if the scope included ambiguous terms. That scenario often required importers to pick one among many costly alternatives. Sunpreme has put that practice to rest.

Notwithstanding the rules outlined in Sunpreme, certain questions remain unanswered. For example, what happens when CBP determines that the scope of an order is unambiguous, such that it suspends the liquidation of certain entries, but Commerce in a subsequent scope ruling finds that the scope is ambiguous? In that scenario, it would seem that Commerce could only instruct CBP to suspend the liquidation of the entries as of the date that Commerce initiated the scope inquiry, based on Sunpreme and Commerce’s regulations. Presumably, that would mean CBP acted unlawfully in suspending liquidation prior to that date. In a post-Sunpreme era, this scenario undoubtedly will arise, and it ultimately may require the CIT and Federal Circuit to issue opinions on the matter. Stay tuned.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Trade Law

July 19, 2024

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

February 9, 2023

With the enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the announcement of the European Union (EU) Green Deal Industrial Plan, there is now a full-fledged subsidy war between the United States and the European Union. While these subsidies are meant to encourage green technologies, incentivizing firms to produce locally would seem to be an almost as important policy goal. And it is not limited to the U.S. and the EU. Global Trade Alert recently reported that, in 2022, production subsidies accounted for half of all trade-distorting measures, making it the mostly commonly used harmful trade policy measure.1

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-01-24

Washington, D.C. partner Kevin Wolf, London partner Jasper Helder and Emily Kilcrease with the Center for New American Security submitted a detailed comment to U.S. and EU export control authorities to help guide and inform efforts to rationalize U.S. and EU export controls.  It can also be a useful resource for anyone interested in the topic and wanting to understand the history and context to current export control policy issues. They note that the US-EU Joint Statement on the role and purpose of export controls “is far more significant than generally recognized because it is the first time the EU (represented by the EC) or any other US ally has stated so explicitly and publicly since the end of the Cold War an agreement with the US that export controls should be used to achieve country-specific and other policy objectives not directly related to weapons of mass destruction or conventional military items.”

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.