Rimco, Inc. v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 22-79,Court No. 21-00537 |
| Citation | 582 F.Supp.3d 1313 |
| Parties | RIMCO, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
John M. Peterson, Neville Peterson LLP, of New York, NY, argued for Plaintiff Rimco, Inc. With him on the brief were Richard F. O'Neill and Patrick B. Klein.
Beverly A. Farrell, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-In-Charge, International Trade Field Office, Claudia Burke, Assistant Director, and Ashley Akers, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were Ian McInerney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Yelena Slepak and Fariha Kabir, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Nicholas J. Birch and Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor, Accuride Corporation.
In this matter, Plaintiff Rimco, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Rimco") seeks to challenge the constitutionality of United States Customs and Border Protection's ("CBP") assessment of countervailing and antidumping duties on entries of certain steel wheels from the People's Republic of China ("China"). See Compl., ECF No. 2. Relevant here, Defendant United States ("Defendant" or "the Government") moves to dismiss Rimco's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to United States Court of International Trade ("USCIT") Rule 12(b)(1). Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted ("Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 32; Def.’s Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of its [Mot. to Dismiss], ECF No. 43.1 Rimco opposes the motion. Pl.’s Opp'n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.’s Resp."), ECF No. 38.
Also before the court are (1) a motion to intervene filed by proposed Defendant-Intervenor Accuride Corporation ("Accuride"), Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 14; (2) Accuride's amended motion to amend its motion to intervene, Am. Mot. to Amend Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 25; (3) Accuride's proposed response in support of Defendant's motion to dismiss, Proposed Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 37; and (4) Plaintiff's motion to strike the proposed response from the docket, Pl.’s Mot. for an Order Directing the Clerk to Remove ECF 37 from the Docket, ECF No. 39.
As discussed below, the court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court denies, as moot, Accuride's motion to intervene and amended motion to amend the motion to intervene and declines to consider Accuride's proposed response in support of the motion to dismiss. The court further denies, as moot, Rimco's motion to strike Accuride's proposed response.
On March 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") published the final countervailing and antidumping duty determinations on certain steel wheels from China. See generally Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China , 84 Fed. Reg. 11,744 (Dep't Commerce Mar. 28, 2019) (final aff. countervailing duty determination) ("Final CVD Determination "); Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China , 84 Fed. Reg. 11,746 (Dep't Commerce Mar. 28, 2019) (final determination of sales at less-than-fair-value) ("Final AD Determination ").
No respondents participated in the antidumping duty investigation; consequently, Commerce determined only a China-wide entity rate of 231.70 percent. See Final AD Determination , 84 Fed. Reg. at 11,747. In the countervailing duty investigation, Commerce established individual rates for two companies based on total adverse facts available and an all-others rate of 457.10 percent. See Final CVD Determination , 84 Fed. Reg. at 11,745 ; see generally 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (). Commerce published both the antidumping duty order ("AD Order") and countervailing duty order ("CVD Order") on May 24, 2019. Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China , 84 Fed. Reg. 24,098 (Dep't Commerce May 24, 2019) (antidumping and countervailing duty orders).
On May 1, 2020, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders for the periods August 31, 2018, through December 31, 2019, and October 30, 2018, through April 30, 2020, respectively. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Admin. Review , 85 Fed. Reg. 25,394, 25,396 (Dep't Commerce May 1, 2020) ("Opportunity Notice "). The Opportunity Notice explained that interested parties (which includes importers), had the opportunity to participate in administrative reviews to ensure that entries were liquidated at the proper rate. See id . at 25,397 ; see also Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 76 Fed. Reg. 65,694, 65,695 (Dep't Commerce Oct. 24, 2011).
Neither Rimco nor any other interested party requested an administrative review of the transactions covered by the respective periods of review. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28. Having received no review requests, Commerce issued liquidation instructions directing CBP to liquidate entries of steel wheels subject to the CVD Order and AD Order. Id. ¶¶ 18, 29. Consistent with the Final CVD Determination and Final AD Determination , the instructions directed CBP to liquidate entries subject to the CVD Order at 457.10 percent and entries subject to the AD Order at 231.70 percent. See Compl. 18–29. CBP liquidated seven entries of Rimco's imported merchandise at the rates provided for in Commerce's liquidation instructions. See id .
On March 16, 2021, Rimco filed a protest challenging CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on these entries. See Protests and Entries at 1, 4–22. CBP denied the protest on March 30, 2021, explaining that " 19 U.S.C. [§] 1514 does not authorize protests or petitions filed against Commerce calculations or findings" and that "[p]rotest must be filed with Commerce." Protests and Entries at 2.
Rimco then commenced this action, alleging that CBP's assessment of countervailing and antidumping duties at rates of 457.10 percent and 231.70 percent, respectively, constituted "excessive fines" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 46–48.
To adjudicate a case, a court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims presented. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 94–95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). "[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. See Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States , 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Here, Rimco alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. Section 1581(a) grants the court jurisdiction to review denied protests by CBP. When a plaintiff asserts section 1581(i) jurisdiction, it "bears the burden of showing that another subsection is either unavailable or manifestly inadequate." Erwin Hymer Group N. Am., Inc. v. United States , 930 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Additionally, because the pending motion to dismiss rests on the absence of jurisdiction pursuant to section 1581(a) and the availability of jurisdiction pursuant to section 1581(c), thereby challenging the existence of section 1581(i) jurisdiction, "the factual allegations in the complaint are not controlling and only uncontroverted factual allegations are accepted as true." Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Rsrv., Wyo. v. United States , 672 F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The USCIT, like all federal courts, is a "court[ ] of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress." Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States , 963 F.2d 356, 358 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Aldinger v. Howard , 427 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976) ). The court's jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1581, et seq . See id.
Relevant here, section 1581(a) grants the court jurisdiction to review a protest denied pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1515. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Section 1581(c) grants the court jurisdiction to review Commerce determinations in countervailing and antidumping duty proceedings commenced in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Section 1581(i) grants the court jurisdiction to entertain "any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for-- ... (B) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue," and "(D) administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this paragraph and subsections (a)–(h) of this section." 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B), (D). Section 1581(i) also expressly excludes jurisdiction over antidumping and countervailing duty determinations reviewable by the court pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a). Id. § 1581(i)(2)(A).
" Section 1581(i) embodies a ‘residual’ grant of jurisdiction[ ] and may not be invoked when jurisdiction under another subsection of [ section] 1581 is or could have been available, unless the remedy provided under that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate." Sunpreme Inc. v. United States , 892 F.3d 1186, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial