United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 18 May 2017
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 17–61,Court No. 15–00047
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

229 F.Supp.3d 1306

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,

v.GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.

Slip Op. 17–61

Court No. 15–00047

United States Court of International Trade.

May 18, 2017

Monica P. Triana , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff. With her on the brief were Chad A. Readler , Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Amy M. Rubin , Assistant Director, International Trade Field Office.

Barry M. Boren , Law Offices of Barry Boren, of Miami, FL, and Gerson M. Joseph , Gerson M. Joseph, P.A., of Weston, FL, for defendant.

OPINION

Barnett, Judge:

The United States of America ("United States" or "Plaintiff") sued Great American Insurance Company of New York ("GAIC" or "Defendant") to recover $50,000 in unpaid antidumping duties and interest, the limit on a continuous entry bond that GAIC issued, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, including statutory interest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 580 (2006)¹ and equitable interest. See generally Compl., ECF No. 2. Plaintiff and Defendant both filed motions for summary judgment; those motions are fully briefed. See Confidential Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. and Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. ("PMSJ"), ECF No. 55; Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York's Mot. for Summ. J. and Supporting Mem. of Law, ECF No. 47; Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Def.'s, Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, Mot. for Summ. J. ("DMSJ"), ECF No. 48. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1582. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, in part, and denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court may grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" based on the materials in the record. U.S. Court of International Trade ("USCIT") Rule 56(a) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When both parties move for summary judgment, the court generally must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits and draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration. JVC Co. of Am., Div. of US JVC Corp. v. United States , 234 F.3d 1348, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Ultimately, the court's function is "not ... to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A dispute about a material fact is genuine when it "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (to defeat summary judgment, the opponent must do more than present evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," rather, the opponent must present sufficient evidence on a disputed factual issue tending to show that "a jury [could] return a verdict for that party").

USCIT Rule 54(b) governs the entry of partial summary judgment. Rule 54(b) provides that "[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief, ... the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims ... only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." USCIT Rule 54(b).

BACKGROUND

I. Material Facts Not Genuinely in Dispute

Pursuant to USCIT Rule 56(c)(1)(A), movants are to present material facts as short and concise statements, in numbered paragraphs, with citations to "particular parts of materials in the record" as support. See USCIT Rule 56.3(a) ("factual positions described in Rule 56(c)(1)(A) must be annexed to the motion in a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs"). In responsive papers, the opponent "must include correspondingly numbered paragraphs responding to the numbered paragraphs in the statement of the movant." USCIT Rule 56.3(b). "If a party fails to properly ... address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may ... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion." USCIT Rule 56(e)(2).

Parties submitted separate statements of undisputed material facts with their respective motions and responses to the opposing party's statements. See Confidential Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("PSOF"), ECF No. 55;² Def., GAIC's, Objs. to the Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Def.'s Resp. to PSOF"), ECF No. 52–2; Uncontested Material Facts ("DSOF"), ECF No. 48 (pp. 11–12); Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("Pl.'s Resp. to DSOF"), ECF No. 61. Upon review of Parties' facts (and supporting documents), the court finds the following material facts not genuinely disputed.³

A. Overview of the Bond and Entry at Issue

On July 29, 2003, GAIC issued a $50,000 continuous bond to secure the payment of duties, taxes, and charges on merchandise imported by Orleans Furniture Inc. ("Orleans Furniture"). PSOF ¶ 1; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.⁴ The bond had an effective date of August 22, 2003, and a termination date of August 31, 2007. PSOF ¶ 2; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

On June 1, 2006, Orleans Furniture made one entry (Entry Number 322–5581818–2) of parts of wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China.⁵ PSOF ¶ 2; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; DSOF ¶ 1; PL.'S RESP. TO DSOF ¶ 1.⁶ On the Entry Summary, Orleans Furniture identified the relevant antidumping duty ("AD") order and exporter using Commerce case number "A–570–890–101." PSOF ¶ 4; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.⁷ Commerce case number A–570–890–101 is associated with exporter Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd. ("Gaomi Yatai"). PSOF ¶ 10.⁸ Commerce later determined that the exporter was Company X.⁹ PSOF ¶12; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF. Exports from Company X are subject to the China-wide rate. PSOF ¶ 12; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

B. Antidumping Duty Order and Administrative Review

On November 17, 2004, Commerce issued its final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). DSOF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. to DSOF ¶ 2; see also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 17, 2004) (final determination of sales at less than fair value); Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 70 Fed. Reg. 329 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 4, 2005) (notice of am. final determination of sales at less than fair value and antidumping duty order).¹⁰

On March 7, 2007, Commerce initiated an administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture imported from China for the period of review ("POR") from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 (the "2006 POR"). PSOF ¶ 13; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; see also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 72 Fed. Reg. 10,159 (Dep't of Commerce March 7, 2007) (notice of initiation of admin. review of the antidumping duty order). The liquidation of entries subject to the review was suspended pending completion of the review. PSOF ¶ 13; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; DSOF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Resp. to DSOF ¶ 3.

On August 20, 2008, Commerce published the final results of its review. PSOF ¶ 14; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; see also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 73 Fed. Reg. 49,162 (Dep't of Commerce Aug. 20, 2008) (final results of antidumping duty admin. review and new shipper review; 2006); Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China , 74 Fed. Reg. 4,916 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 28, 2009)(am. final results of antidumping duty admin. review; 2006). Publication of the final results lifted the suspension of liquidation for entries subject to the review. PSOF ¶ 15; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

On January 27, 2009, Commerce issued Message 9027213 instructing Customs to assess antidumping duties at a rate of 216.01% to entries subject to the China-wide rate and identified by Commerce case number A–570–890–000. PSOF ¶ 16; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; see also PMSJ, Confidential Ex. 3 ("Jan. 27, 2009 Liquidation Instructions"). For all other entries, Commerce ordered Customs to "continue to collect cash deposits of estimated [AD] duties [for the merchandise] at the current cash deposit rates." PSOF ¶ 17; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

C. Court Proceedings Enjoining Liquidation

On February 13, 2009, the court issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") enjoining the liquidation of 2006 POR entries from several exporters, including Gaomi Yatai. PSOF ¶ 18 (citing Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 08–00316, Order (Feb. 13, 2009) ("Am. Signature TRO"), ECF No. 64). The court subsequently issued a preliminary injunction in that case. PSOF ¶ 18 (citing Am. Signature, Consol. Court No. 08–00316, Order (Feb. 24, 2009) ("Am. Signature Prelim. Inj."), ECF No. 70). Pursuant to the TRO, Commerce issued Message 9055211 instructing Customs to suspend the liquidation of entries exported by Gaomi Yatai for the 2006 POR and identified by Commerce case number A–570–890–101, and which remained unliquidated as of February 19, 2009. PSOF ¶ 19 (citing Feb. 24, 2009 Suspension Instructions).¹¹ A Customs official subsequently entered a notation in CBP's Automated Commercial Systems ("ACS") database stating that Entry Number 322–5518182 was "subject to [the] TRO dated 2/13/09 per CBP message 9055211," and that, therefore, the entry should not be liquidated "absent further instructions." PSOF ¶ 20; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF; PMSJ, Ex. 5, ECF No. 60 (ACS entry notation). Customs treated the entry as if it had been suspended. PSOF ¶ 21; Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

When the court dismissed American Signature on May 18, 2009, the injunction dissolved and the suspension of liquidation of entries of merchandise exported by Gaomi Yatai associated with Commerce case number A–570–890–101 was lifted. PSOF ¶ 22 (citing Am. Signature , Consol. Court No. 08–00316, Order (May 18, 2009), ECF No. 91); Def.'s Resp. to PSOF.

D. ...