This article examines Target Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 23-106 (Ct Int’l Trade July 20, 2023), a recent ruling by the Court of International Trade (CIT) and its implications on liquidation matters. The court granted the government’s request to dismiss Target’s case, which aimed to invalidate a CIT order instructing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reliquidate Target’s metal-top iron tables at a higher dumping rate. Judge Leo Gordon’s discussion in the decision emphasized the importance of the Court’s authority and the potential consequences of undermining its powers. Through this decision, the Court reiterated its authority to determine the finality of an Antidumping and/or Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) investigations above the agency level. Importers should always ensure to review for applicable decisions from the CIT and CAFC when assessing whether their merchandise is subject to AD/CVD.

In a significant ruling on July 20, the Court of International Trade addressed the dispute between Target and the government over the reliquidation of metal-top iron tables. The court’s reasoning and the implications of its decision in light of the Customs Courts Act and Article III of the Constitution are especially crucial to understanding the Customs liquidation laws. The court’s decision to grant the government’s request to dismiss Target’s case sparked debates on the scope of the Court’s authority and the impact on parties seeking relief before the Court. This recent action comes after an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the Court No. 07-00123’s order of reliquidation for certain entries. In Court No. 07-00123, a settlement stipulation resulted in a judgment establishing an antidumping duty margin of 72.29% for the first administrative review of metal-top iron tables imported from China and produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.

In this decision, the court underscored the progress made over four decades since the enactment of the Customs Courts Act, which provides the CIT with the necessary remedial powers in law and equity, akin to other federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution. The court’s emphasis on preserving the finality of liquidation and maintaining the balance between proper assessment of antidumping duties and equitable relief played a crucial role in the decision. The Court’s authority, as conferred by statutes such as 28 U.S.C. § 1585 and 28 U.S.C. § 2643, came to the forefront in determining the validity of Target’s plea. This case made the distinction between the Court of International Trade’s authority and that of Customs in liquidation matters.

The CIT faced the issue of whether to enforce its judgment through an affirmative injunction, considering the balance between proper assessment of antidumping duties and the finality of liquidation. Based on the facts, the court concluded that justice required correcting the erroneously liquidated subject entries. This Court pointed out that the Court of International Trade (and the Court of Appeals), not Customs, holds the ultimate authority over entries in a trade action. The carve-out from § 1514 for entries under § 1516a means that such entries must be liquidated in accordance with the “final court decision” pursuant to § 1516a(e), giving the court, not Customs, the final say over the entries.

The Court held that the statutory scheme is clear that the Court has all the powers in law and equity as granted to Article III courts under the Constitution (28 U.S.C. § 1585; 28 U.S.C. § 2643). The Court posed that, if Target were to succeed in convincing the Court that it lacked the authority to enforce its own judgment, it would essentially reverse “progress made over 40 years since the passage of the Customs Courts Act of 1980.” The Court explained that the statute was enacted to provide the U.S. Court of International Trade with the necessary remedial powers in law and equity, akin to other federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution. Thus, the Court held that it could not “and will not” undermine its own authority and deny parties the opportunity to obtain full and complete relief, as intended by the statute. 

In summary, the Court reaffirmed its power to ascertain the conclusiveness of Antidumping and/or Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) investigations beyond the agency’s scope. Importers must consistently examine relevant judgments from the CIT and CAFC to assess whether their goods are subjected to AD/CVD measures. This recent decision by the Court of International Trade has significant implications for the Court’s authority in liquidation matters. The Court’s emphasis on preserving finality, upholding the Customs Courts Act, and maintaining a balance between statutory provisions and equitable relief ensures the integrity of its powers as an Article III court. This decision provides valuable insights into the intricate interplay between statutory provisions and constitutional authority in trade-related litigation. We anticipate that this decision will have ramifications for future liquidation matters before the Court.