Zenith Electronics Corp. v. U.S., No. 89-1186

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore FRIEDMAN, RICH, and ARCHER; FRIEDMAN
Citation884 F.2d 556
PartiesZENITH ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal of DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date24 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 89-1186

Page 556

884 F.2d 556
11 ITRD 1401
ZENITH ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal of DAEWOO ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-1186.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1989.

Page 557

Frederick L. Ikenson, of Frederick L. Ikenson, P.C., Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the

Page 558

brief, were J. Eric Nissley and Larry Hampel.

Velta A. Melnbrencis, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., represented defendant-appellee.

David A. Gantz, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellant. Timothy A. Harr, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Before FRIEDMAN, RICH, and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction issued by the United States Court of International Trade under the authority of the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a) (1982). The injunction bars the Department of Commerce (Commerce) from implementing changes in its determination of the level of duties resulting from administrative review of an antidumping duty order, without the authorization of the court. The changes were designed to correct alleged clerical errors in the determination. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 699 F.Supp. 296 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988). We affirm.

I

A. Commerce is authorized under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673a (1982 & Supp. V 1987), to conduct formal investigations of whether any imported merchandise should be subject to antidumping duties. If, as a result of such proceedings, (1) Commerce concludes that merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value, and (2) the United States International Trade Commission determines that the importation of such merchandise materially injures or threatens so to injure a domestic industry, then (3) Commerce must publish an antidumping order directing the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on present entries of such merchandise, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673e(a), and to require the deposit of estimated antidumping duties on future entries. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673e(a)(3) (1982).

Under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a) (1982 & Supp. V 1987), Commerce is required, if requested, to review at least annually the amount of duty to be assessed under an antidumping order, and to publish in the Federal Register a notice of "Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review," for each such review. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1), (2); 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.53a(c)(8) (1988). Commerce is then required to instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on entries of merchandise made during the review period and to collect a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on future entries, on the basis of those results. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(2); 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.53a(c)(9).

Under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a (1982 & Supp. V 1987), an interested party, defined by 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(9) to include a domestic manufacturer, who participated in the administrative proceedings, may seek judicial review of the final antidumping determination or the results of the annual administrative review by filing a summons in the United States Court of International Trade within thirty days after the publication in the Federal Register of the determination or review. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(a)(2)(B). The Court of International Trade has "exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced" under that section. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1581(c) (1982).

B. On July 1, 1988, Commerce published the final results of an annual administrative review of the antidumping order covering color television receivers from Korea. Color Television Receivers From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 53 Fed.Reg. 24,975 (1988). On July 12, 1988, Commerce issued instructions to the Customs Service setting the cash deposit rates of estimated antidumping duties based upon that determination that will be required on subsequent importations of color television receivers from Korea.

On the same day following the publication of the final results in the Federal Register (July 1, 1988), the appellee, Zenith Electronics Corporation (Zenith), a domestic

Page 559

television manufacturer, filed its summons in the Court of International Trade and, on July 13, 1988, filed its complaint challenging the final results. Three Korean manufacturers and a domestic labor union filed similar separate suits. Each complaint alleged that there were certain "clerical" errors in the calculations supporting those results.

The appellant Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd. (Daewoo), a Korean television manufacturer, filed a request with Commerce that Commerce correct certain computer and clerical errors in that portion of the final results that related to Daewoo's imports. Daewoo asserted that the calculation of its dumping margins was erroneous because in making the calculation Commerce had improperly compared the sale prices of Daewoo sets in the American market with Daewoo's sales prices in the Korean market of different screen size sets.

On September 26, 1988, Commerce signed a notice of amended results proposing to correct certain "clerical errors" in the final results of the earlier administrative review. Commerce concluded that three ministerial errors had been made in the final results, that certain dumping margins were actually lower than had been determined, and that Daewoo's cash deposit rates should be lowered from 23.30 percent to 15.23 percent.

Two days later the Court of International Trade issued a temporary restraining order barring Commerce from "rescinding, revising, or otherwise altering" the final results or from altering the cash deposit instructions Commerce had issued to the Customs Service. The next day, after Zenith had informed the court that publication of amended results was "imminent," the court amended the restraining order to bar Commerce from publishing the proposed notice of amended results in the Federal Register.

Following oral argument, the court issued a preliminary injunction. In its opinion, the court held that "basic considerations of court jurisdiction, judicial authority and judicial economy dictate that alteration of an administrative result while it is under court review cannot be done without the approval of the Court." The court stated that it "further finds that [Zenith] was not given a fair opportunity to present its views regarding the asserted errors." 699 F.Supp. at 297. The court explained:

The need to obtain the approval of the Court in order to change the administrative result is simply a recognition of the Court's jurisdiction over the action. One of the ways in which jurisdiction is exercised is by the power of the Court over the subject matter of the action. When a party to a judicial action contemplates doing anything to directly alter the subject matter of the judicial proceeding a proper regard for the authority of the Court requires that the permission of the Court be obtained. [Citation omitted.]

Id. The court further stated that "the administrative authority to correct clerical errors is not absolute.... [O]nce a judicial review has been commenced ... the authority of an administrative agency to correct its clerical errors must be exercised in a way that is consistent with the fundamental obligations which flow from subjection to judicial review." Id.

This does not mean that Commerce cannot continue the process of identifying ministerial errors while a judicial proceeding is underway. But it does mean, that in order to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 16–33
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 6, 2016
    ...New Century Corp. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 867 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1311–12 (2012) (citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 560–61 (Fed.Cir.1989) ). On October 24, 2014, the court granted Defendant's motion for leave to permit Commerce to correct ministerial errors......
  • Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-43.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 4, 2006
    ...§ 1675(a)(2)(C); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368, 1372-73 (Fed.Cir. 2003); Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 558 (Fed.Cir. 1989). Once the actual rate of dumping for particular goods is established through an administrative review, Commerce instructs......
  • Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-145.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 14, 1998
    ...corrections without the Court's permission. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 932, 699 F.Supp. 296 (1988), aff'd 884 F.2d 556 (Fed. Cir.1989) (to avoid conflict with Court's authority, Commerce must apply for permission to amend final determinations once judicial proceeding ......
  • Magyar Gordulocsapagy Muvek v. US, No. 90-08-00383.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 16, 1991
    ...the time specified in such section." Indeed, this court recognized in Zenith Elecs. v. United States, 699 F.Supp. 296 (1988), aff'd, 884 F.2d 556 (Fed.Cir.1989), the possibility that given the complex nature of these determinations, Commerce might well be unable to analyze allegations of mi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 16–33
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 6, 2016
    ...New Century Corp. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 867 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1311–12 (2012) (citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 560–61 (Fed.Cir.1989) ). On October 24, 2014, the court granted Defendant's motion for leave to permit Commerce to correct ministerial errors......
  • Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-43.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 4, 2006
    ...§ 1675(a)(2)(C); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368, 1372-73 (Fed.Cir. 2003); Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 556, 558 (Fed.Cir. 1989). Once the actual rate of dumping for particular goods is established through an administrative review, Commerce instructs......
  • Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-145.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 14, 1998
    ...corrections without the Court's permission. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 932, 699 F.Supp. 296 (1988), aff'd 884 F.2d 556 (Fed. Cir.1989) (to avoid conflict with Court's authority, Commerce must apply for permission to amend final determinations once judicial proceeding ......
  • Magyar Gordulocsapagy Muvek v. US, No. 90-08-00383.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 16, 1991
    ...the time specified in such section." Indeed, this court recognized in Zenith Elecs. v. United States, 699 F.Supp. 296 (1988), aff'd, 884 F.2d 556 (Fed.Cir.1989), the possibility that given the complex nature of these determinations, Commerce might well be unable to analyze allegations of mi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT