CAFC Remands Case on Protest of Deemed Liquidations
In Shinyei Corporation of America, v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for the second time, a case on the amount of antidumping duties owed on shipments of ball bearings imported from Japan by Shinyei in 1990-1991.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The CAFC ruled that deemed liquidation did not bar a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act any more than did actual liquidation, and that Shinyei's administrative protests were timely.
Shinyei made entry for shipments of ball bearings imported from Japan between May 1, 1990 and April 30, 1991, paying antidumping duty deposits at the rate of 45.83%.
In 1992, the International Trade Administration published the final results of their administrative review for that period with final antidumping duty rates substantially lower than 45.83%.
This review was challenged by U.S. importers and the Court of International Trade suspended liquidation until 1997, when the CIT finally affirmed the ITA's review results. In 1998, the ITA issued initial instructions for specified entries to be liquidated at the lower duty rate. Some of Shinyei's entries were not listed and those entries were eventually deemed liquidated by law as of August 1998 at the rate of 45.83%.
Shinyei appealed to the CIT alleging that all of its entries should have been liquidated at the lower antidumping duty rates. During the next seven years, the CIT and the CAFC exchanged rulings on whether a claim under the APA could be filed when the affected entries had already been liquidated, and whether Shinyei's claim was timely filed.
In the current decision, the CAFC ruled that Shinyei was entitled to protest the deemed liquidations and that it did so in a timely fashion. The Court reversed and remanded the case to the CIT for the second time for a review on its merits.
CAFC decision 2007-1291 (dated 04/24/08) available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1291.pdf