Aspects Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 17 August 2020
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 20-120,Court No. 18-00222
• Parties: ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

469 F.Supp.3d 1359

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 20-120

Court No. 18-00222

United States Court of International Trade.

August 17, 2020

Robert W. Snyder and Laura A. Moya, Law Offices of Robert W. Snyder, of Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff.

Marcella Powell, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant. With her on the brief were Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General. Of counsel on the brief was Paula Smith, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

OPINION AND ORDER

Barnett, Judge:

In this action, Plaintiff Aspects Furniture International, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "AFI") contests the denial of two protests¹ challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's ("CBP" or "Customs") allegedly untimely liquidation of ten entries associated with those protests. See generally Compl., ECF No. 2. The matter is before the court on Defendant's ("the Government") motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade ("USCIT") Rule 12(c), Def.’s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and accompanying Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. on the Pleadings ("Def.’s Mot. J."), ECF No. 35; AFI's cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment, Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Partial J. on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, for Partial Summ. J., and Resp. in Opp'n to Def.’s Mot. for J. on the Pleadings ("Pl.’s Cross-Mot. J."), ECF No. 43; and AFI's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, Mot. for Leave to File First Am. Compl. ("Pl.’s Mot. Am. Compl."), ECF No. 58. For the reasons discussed herein, AFI's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. Accordingly, the Government's motion for judgment on the pleadings and AFI's cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot. See, e.g. , Pac. Bell Tele. Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, Inc. , 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4, 129 S.Ct. 1109, 172 L.Ed.2d 836 (2009) ("Normally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.").

BACKGROUND

The imported merchandise at issue in this case consists of wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China. Pl.’s Mot. Am. Compl., Ex.1 ("Proposed Am. Compl.") ¶ 7. AFI is the importer of record. Id. ¶ 3. On various dates in January, February, July, and December of 2014, AFI made ten entries of wooden bedroom furniture. See Summons (schedule of protests).

On April 11, 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") published the final results of its tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 11 (citing Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 81 Fed. Reg. 21,319 (Dep't Commerce Apr. 11, 2016) (final results and final determination of no shipments, in part; 2014 admin. review) ("Final Results ")). Publication of the Final Results "lifted the statutory suspension of liquidation of the [s]ubject [e]ntries." Id. ¶ 12. Thereafter, CBP began liquidating subject entries "at the rate of 216.01 [percent]." Id. ¶ 13.²

On April 27, 2016, the court issued a statutory injunction to enjoin the liquidation of certain entries during a lawsuit filed to challenge the Final Results . Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14–15; see also Am. Furniture Mfrs. Comm. for Legal Trade, et al. v. United States , Court No. 16-cv-00070 (CIT Apr. 27, 2016) (hereinafter, "the AFMC litigation"). On February 28, 2017, the court held a hearing in connection with the AFMC litigation. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 17. On March 13, 2017, the court dismissed that lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 18.

On March 29, 2017, CBP published the court's judgment in the AFMC litigation in its Customs Bulletin and Decisions Official Reporter. Id. ¶ 19. Thereafter, on May 30, 2017, Customs published Message No. 7150306 in its online antidumping and countervailing duty search portal, referred to as "ACE Services," which served to "inform[ ] CBP port officials that the suspension of liquidation of the [s]ubject [e]ntries had been lifted." Id. ¶ 20.

On November 24, 2017, CBP liquidated the nine subject entries. Id. ¶ 21. On December 1, 2017, CBP liquidated the single subject entry. Id. ¶ 22. AFI timely protested the liquidations. Id. ¶ 23. CBP denied AFI's protests on May 10, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26.

On October 27, 2018, AFI timely commenced this action challenging the denial of its protests. See Summons. On June 21, 2019, the court denied the Government's partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Aspects Furn. Int'l, Inc. v. United States ("AFI "), 43 CIT ––––, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (2019). On July 19, 2019, the Government filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Ans., ECF No. 28.

On July 26, 2019, the court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which "[a]ny motions regarding the pleadings or other preliminary matters" were due by August 9, 2019. Scheduling Order (July 26, 2019) ("Scheduling Order"), ECF No. 31. On January 8, 2020, the Government filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Def.’s Mot. J. Shortly thereafter, the court granted the Government's motion to stay discovery. Order (Jan. 14, 2020) ("Stay Order"), ECF No. 40. On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff opposed the Government's motion and filed a cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively for partial summary judgment. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. J. Those motions have been fully briefed. See Def.’s Reply in Further Supp. of its Mot. for J. on the Pleadings and in Opp'n to Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Partial J. on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 55; Pl.’s Reply in Further Supp. of its Cross-Mot. for Partial J. on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 56. On June 4, 2020, the court held a telephone conference with the parties in connection with the pending motions. See Docket Entry, ECF No. 59.

On June 10, 2020, AFI moved for leave to amend its complaint. Pl.’s Mot. Am. Compl. On July 8, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to AFI's motion. Def.’s Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File the First Am. Compl. ("Def.’s Opp'n Am. Compl."), ECF No. 63.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (2012),³ and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012).

Pursuant to USCIT Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend its complaint more than 21 days after service of a responsive pleading "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." USCIT Rule 15(a)(2) (applicable to pleadings); see also USCIT Rule 7(a)(1) (a complaint is a pleading). Whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is committed to the court's discretion. See, e.g. , Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) ; Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co. v. United States , 35 C.I.T. 1229, 1229, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1383 (2011). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." USCIT Rule 15(a)(2). Leave may be denied when the court finds "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment." Foman , 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227.

Once a scheduling order is established, a motion to amend a pleading is subject to any deadline established in that scheduling order. See USCIT Rule 16(b)(3)(A). USCIT Rule 16(b)(4), in conjunction with USCIT Rule 6(b)(1), permits a schedule to be modified for good cause with the court's consent. When a motion effectively seeks to extend a deadline that has already passed, it is properly treated as a motion for an extension of time, out of time, and USCIT Rule 6(b)(1)(B) also applies. See United States v. Horizon Prods. Int'l, Inc. , 38 CIT ––––, ––––, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1367 (2014). In addition to good cause, a motion filed out of time must show "excusable neglect or circumstances beyond the control of the party." USCIT Rule 6(b)(1)(B).

Good cause requires the moving party to show that the deadline for which an extension is sought cannot reasonably be met despite the movant's diligent efforts to comply with the schedule. See High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc. , 730 F.3d 1301, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing "good cause" in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) ); Horizon Prods. , 34 F. Supp. 3d at 1367.

The court assesses excusable neglect by considering: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." Horizon Prods. , 34 F. Supp. 3d at 1367 (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. , 507 U.S. 380, 392, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) ). Furthermore, the court may consider "all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Home Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. United States , 31 C.I.T. 1706, 1709, 521 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1385 (2007) (quoting Pioneer , 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489 ).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Framework

When a statutory or court-ordered suspension of liquidation is lifted, Customs shall liquidate an entry "within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal from [Commerce], [an]other agency, or a court with jurisdiction over the entry," otherwise the entry will be deemed liquidated "at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted by the importer of record." 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Thus, for an entry to be deemed...