‘Not Possible’ to Suspend Section 301 Liquidations en Masse, DOJ Says
The Justice Department, in a major Section 301 litigation policy reversal, said Aug. 31 it agreed to stipulate that refunds will be available on liquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure if importers prevail in the massive volume of cases inundating the Court of International Trade to vacate the tariffs. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded on Aug. 31 that they're "pleased" with the government's stipulation as something the plaintiffs have advocated for months, but not with DOJ's "bewildering" proposal that importers would still be required to file spreadsheet submissions in a CBP repository.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
CBP will still create the repository, but only for importers to identify unliquidated customs entries eligible for refunds after the litigation, not to request on-the-spot suspensions of those liquidations, as previously proposed, DOJ said in an Aug. 30 status report. Importers will be required to file spreadsheets of their entries in the repository each quarter, not more frequently as previously proposed, DOJ said. The stipulation applies only to entries that were unliquidated at the time of a plaintiff’s submission into the repository, and for which the Section 301 duties are later found to have been unlawfully imposed, the government said. The stipulation and the issue of refunds would be moot if importers fail in their legal challenge, it said.
After seven weeks of “concerted efforts” to create a system for suspending the liquidations of an “unprecedented volume” of entries, “it has become apparent that it is not possible” to do so, the government said. “The resources required to adapt existing systems, designed for very different purposes, to suspend liquidation on this scale do not exist,” and would be “catastrophic” for CBP’s “many other critical functions,” it said.
The government still maintains, as it has argued for months, that reliquidation "is not generally available as a remedy" in actions like the Section 301 complaints, except when necessary to "enforce and protect the integrity" of court orders, DOJ said. But the government now believes that stipulation is "the only possible option" for complying with the court's July 6 preliminary injunction order to freeze liquidations, it said. DOJ's lead trial attorney Jamie Shookman, told a July 25 status conference the government could envision no "scenario" in which it would support a refund stipulation, but she didn't entirely rule it out (see 2107230051).
DOJ offers no rationale -- and "none exists" -- for its "bewildering position" that plaintiff importers would "still be required to make ongoing, entry-by-entry requests for suspension of liquidation to trigger the benefits of the stipulation," Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said. "In light of the changed circumstances," the court "should eliminate any make-work burden" on the plaintiffs or the government "that serves no purpose in facilitating the proposed stipulation," they said. Sept. 3 is the court’s latest deadline for CBP to create the repository -- the subject of a status conference scheduled for 10 a.m. Sept. 1, where DOJ's proposals on the spreadsheet submissions are likely to be debated.
The stipulation approach "eliminates the need for any work and additional expense" by either side "associated with ongoing, entry-by-entry submissions," Akin Gump's lawyers said. Since the government "does not intend to suspend liquidation, it does not need any entry-by-entry data -- or any further information whatsoever," they said. The stipulation requires the government "to do nothing (other than liquidate in the ordinary course) unless and until" importers prevail on the merits of the litigation, they said. "This approach also fully preserves the Government’s right to appeal the availability of refunds for List 3 and 4A duties paid on entries that liquidated" before the July 6 preliminary injunction order, they said.
Instead of requiring the repository submissions, "it would be far more sensible, fair, and efficient" for plaintiffs and the government "to collaborate on ways to simplify the generation of relevant reports at the remedial stage that would cover the potential refund periods at issue" at the end of the trial if importers win the litigation, the Akin Gump lawyers said. "That collaboration has already begun in significant part with these Repository-related discussions, and can continue in parallel with the merits so as to minimize burdens on all parties and the Court at the end of this litigation."
Chief Judge Mark Barnett expressed worry at a July 15 status conference about what he said from his court experience was the need to address the possible refund burden “upfront,” not wait until the litigation is over (see 2107150049). Amid the number of entries and importers involved in the massive litigation, deferring the burden until after the case is resolved will result in a “guaranteed train wreck of epic proportions,” Barnett said then.