Aspects Furniture International, Inc., Imss, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
IMSS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-2060, 2021-2061
______________________
Appeals from the United States Court of International
Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00222-MAB, 1:19-cv-00029-MAB,
Judge Mark A. Barnett.
______________________
Decided: July 28, 2022
______________________
L AURA A NDREEA MOYA, Law Offices of Robert W.
Snyder, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also
represented by ROBERT WAYNE SNYDER.
MARCELLA P OWELL , International Trade Field Office,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, New
York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, HARDEEP K AUR J OSAN, AIMEE L EE ,
P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , J USTIN REINHART MILLER; P AULA
S. SMITH , Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Bureau of
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 1 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 2
Customs and Border Protection, United States Depart-
ment of Homeland Security, New York, NY.
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Appellants challenge the timing and procedure by
which the United States Customs and Border Protection
provided notice to Appellants of the liquidation of eleven
entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China. Appel-
lants contend that the United States Court of International
Trade erred in determining that Customs timely liquidated
or reliquidated ten entries and that Customs’ mislabeling
of the notice of reliquidation for the remaining entry was
harmless. We affirm.
P ROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellants Aspects Furniture International, Inc.
(“AFI”) and IMSS, LLC (“IMSS”) are importers of wooden
bedroom furniture from China. Appellants challenge the
procedure by which the United States Customs and Border
Protection (“Customs”) liquidated and/or reliquidated cer-
tain of Appellants’ entries of wooden bedroom furniture. At
issue are the following eleven imports entered during 2014:
(1) nine entries made by AFI on February 18, Feb-
ruary 23, July 8, July 27, and December 15, respec-
tively (“AFI’s Nine Subject Entries”);
(2) one entry made by AFI on January 31 (“AFI’s
Tenth Subject Entry”) (together with AFI’s Nine
Subject Entries, “AFI’s Subject Entries”); and
(3) one entry made by IMSS on September 11
(“IMSS’s Subject Entry”).
J.A. 6, 157, 170, 180, 191, 201, 212, 223, 231, 242, 257, 275.
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 2 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 3
On March 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) initiated the tenth administrative review of
the antidumping order covering wooden bedroom furniture
imported into the United States from China. See Initiation
of Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Admin. Revs.,
80 Fed. Reg. 11,166, 11,168 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 2,
2015). On April 11, 2016, Commerce published the results
of the tenth administrative review in the Federal Register,
which set a China-wide antidumping duty rate of 216.01
percent ad valorem. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results & Final De-
termination of No Shipments, In Part: 2014 Admin. Rev.,
81 Fed. Reg. 21,319 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 11, 2016) (“Final
Admin Results”).
On April 26, 2016, the American Furniture Manufac-
turers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughn-Bassett
Furniture Company, Inc. (“AFMC”) filed a lawsuit chal-
lenging the Final Admin Results before the Court of Inter-
national Trade. Am. Furniture Mfrs. Comm. for Legal
Trade v. United States, No. 16-cv-00070 (Ct. Int’l Trade)
(“AFMC Litigation”). On April 27, 2016, the Court of In-
ternational Trade issued an injunction to enjoin the liqui-
dation (“suspension of liquidation”) of the entries involved
in the AFMC Litigation, including the entries at issue in
this appeal. J.A. 6. On March 13, 2017, the Court of Inter-
national Trade dismissed the AFMC Litigation for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Am. Furniture Mfrs.
Comm. for Legal Trade v. United States, No. 16-00070
2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24, at *5–12 (Mar. 13, 2017).
On May 12, 2017, the dismissal of the AFMC Litigation be-
came final. See J.A. 8. On May 30, 2017, Commerce issued
liquidation instructions to Customs for the subject entries,
which notified Customs of the end of the injunction. Id.
On November 24, 2017, Customs liquidated AFI’s Nine
Subject Entries. J.A. 158, 173, 183, 194, 204, 215, 226, 234,
245. On November 30, 2017, AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry
was deemed liquidated. J.A. 413. On December 1, 2017,
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 3 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 4
Customs sent a notice of liquidation as to AFI’s Tenth Sub-
ject Entry. J.A. 260. AFI’s Subject Entries were assessed
a final antidumping duty rate of 216.01 percent. J.A. 9.
AFI timely protested the liquidations, and Customs denied
the protests. J.A. 286.
On November 30, 2017, IMSS’s Subject Entry was
deemed liquidated. J.A. 9. On February 16, 2018, Cus-
toms sent a notice of liquidation regarding IMSS’s Subject
Entry. J.A. 278. On February 28, 2018, Customs sent a
notice of reliquidation of IMSS’s Subject Entry. J.A. 280.
As with AFI’s Subject Entries, Customs assessed a final
antidumping duty rate of 216.01 percent. J.A. 10. IMSS
timely protested the reliquidation, and the protest was de-
nied by operation of law. Id.
On October 27, 2018, AFI timely filed suit before the
Court of International Trade challenging Customs’ denial
of its protests. Id. On March 22, 2019, IMSS filed a similar
suit. Id. On August 25, 2020, the Court of International
Trade consolidated the two actions for purposes of discov-
ery and briefing. J.A. 11.
On November 12, 2020, the Government filed a motion
for summary judgment and the parties’ joint statements of
material facts. Id. That same day, IMSS responded to the
Government’s motion for a protective order and moved to
compel discovery regarding the date Customs was served
with the Court of International Trade’s decision dismissing
the AFMC litigation. Id. Thereafter, the court deferred
ruling on the motion for a protective order and stayed the
Government’s response to IMSS’s motion to compel. Id.
On December 17, 2020, Appellants cross-moved for
summary judgment in opposition to the Government’s mo-
tion. J.A. 12. On March 5, 2021, the court ordered addi-
tional briefing regarding what, if any, harm Appellants
suffered from Customs’ alleged error of labeling the notices
of reliquidation as notices of liquidation and, if there was
an error, whether it was harmless. Id. On March 29, 2021,
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 4 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 5
the court heard oral argument regarding the supplemental
briefing. Id.
On April 9, 2021, the Court of International Trade is-
sued final judgment, granting the government’s motion for
summary judgment. J.A. 1. The Court of International
Trade determined that the applicable date of notice under
19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) was May 30, 2017, the date on which
Commerce sent liquidation instructions to Customs.
J.A. 23. The Court of International Trade also determined
that its March 13, 2017, decision in the AFCM litigation
did not provide unambiguous notice that the relevant in-
junction was lifted. J.A. 17–18. As such, the Court of In-
ternational Trade denied Appellants’ request for discovery
concerning when Customs received a copy of the Court of
International Trade’s decision, reasoning that even if Cus-
toms received the decision before May 30, the decision did
not provide the requisite notice. J.A. 18–19. The Court of
International Trade also concluded that Customs’ error in
labeling the notice regarding AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry as
a liquidation instead of a reliquidation was harmless be-
cause that entry was liquidated or reliquidated within the
relevant statutory period, and the effect was the same.
J.A. 42.
Appellants timely appealed. This court has exclusive
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a grant of summary judgment by the Court
of International Trade de novo. Kahrs Int’l v. United
States, 713 F.3d 640, 643–44 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Although we
apply a de novo standard of review, we give great weight to
the informed opinion of the Court of International Trade.
Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 5 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 6
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” U.S. CIT R. 56(a) (2015). A nonmoving party estab-
lishes that there is a genuine dispute of material fact only
if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).
D ISCUSSION
When importing a good into the United States, a U.S.
importer of record is required to use reasonable care in
providing Customs with true and correct documentation
regarding the value it declares for the imported merchan-
dise. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484, 1485. Should a dispute arise with
Customs as to the actual value of the entry, an interested
party may challenge the value asserted by Customs by fil-
ing a protest. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States,
287 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 19 U.S.C.
§ 1675b).
When Customs determines that an entry is covered by
an antidumping order, it suspends liquidation1 and notifies
the importer of “determined or estimated” duties.
19 U.S.C. § 159.58. When the suspension of liquidation is
lifted, either by statute or court-order, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d)
establishes that Customs shall liquidate the relevant 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 liqui-
dated “at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of
duty asserted by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1504(d). In order for an entry to be deemed liquidated,
the suspension of liquidation must have been removed;
Customs must have received notice of the removal of the
1 “Liquidation” is defined as “the final computation
or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or
drawback entries.” 19 C.F.R. § 159.1.
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 6 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 7
suspension; and Customs must not have liquidated the en-
try at issue within six months of receiving notice of the sus-
pension removal. Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 384 F.3d
1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc.
v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
We have interpreted § 1504 to require that a notice of
removal of suspension of liquidation must be “unambigu-
ous and public.” See id. at 1320. We have also clarified
that the suspension of liquidation under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(c)(2) cannot be lifted until the time for petitioning
the Supreme Court for certiorari expires. Id. (citing Fu-
jitsu, 283 F.3d at 1379).
An entry that has been liquidated, or deemed liqui-
dated by operation of law, may be voluntarily reliquidated
by Customs pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1501 provided it is un-
dertaken within 90 days from the date of the original liqui-
dation. Section 1501 provides:
A liquidation made in accordance with section 1500
or 1504 of this title or any reliquidation thereof
made in accordance with this section may be reliq-
uidated in any respect by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, notwithstanding the filing of a protest,
within ninety days from the date of the original liq-
uidation. Notice of such reliquidation shall be
given or transmitted in the manner prescribed with
respect to original liquidations under section
1500(e) of this title.
19 U.S.C. § 1501 (emphasis added).
Notice
Appellants raise two principal arguments on appeal re-
garding notice. First, Appellants contend that the Court of
International Trade erred in determining that there is no
genuine dispute of material fact as to the date of notice un-
der § 1504(d). Appellants’ Br. 16–21. Second, Appellants
argue that the Court of International Trade erred in
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 7 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 8
denying discovery as to when Customs received a copy of
the decision dismissing the AFMC litigation. Id.
The date of notice under § 1504(d) is relevant here be-
cause if the notice date was before May 24, 2017, then Cus-
toms erred with respect to its treatment of AFI’s Subject
Entries by stating “liquidation” on the notice, instead of
“reliquidation,” because those entries had already liqui-
dated by operation of law. With respect to IMSS’s Subject
Entry, if the notice date was before May 24, 2017, then all
notices are untimely because each is outside the 6-month
[§ 1504(d)] plus 90-day [§ 1501] statutory window.
The core of the dispute regarding notice is whether the
March 13 decision in the AMFC litigation gave unambigu-
ous notice of the end of the injunction (which would lift sus-
pension of liquidation). See Fujitsu, 283 F.3d at 1376
(holding that there must be “an unambiguous and public
starting point for the six-month liquidation period”). We
conclude that the Court of International Trade correctly de-
termined that its decision in the AFMC litigation did not
provide such unambiguous and public notice, and that
there is no genuine dispute of fact as to the notice date.
In its March 13 decision in the AFMC litigation, the
Court of International Trade dismissed the case for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Am. Furniture Mfrs. Comm.
for Legal Trade, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24, at *5–12.
That decision did not discuss or address the injunction in
any way and, as such, did not fulfill the statutory require-
ment that the notice be unambiguous. Accordingly, the
Court of International Trade correctly denied discovery as
to the date Customs received a copy of its decision because,
even if Customs was served a copy, that decision did not
constitute adequate notice. Instead, the Court of Interna-
tional Trade correctly determined, the first unambiguous
notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation was
the May 30, 2017 liquidation instructions from Commerce
to Customs.
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 8 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 9
Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, this
court has never held that liquidation instructions cannot
provide the statutorily required unambiguous and public
notice. See Appellants’ Br. 19–21 (citing Int’l Trading Co.
v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). In Inter-
national Trading, this court held that, under the facts of
that case, the first public and unambiguous notice of the
removal of the suspension of liquidation was when Com-
merce published the final results of the relevant adminis-
trative review in the Federal Register. Int’l Trading,
412 F.3d at 1313. In so holding, the court rejected the date
on which Commerce sent liquidation instructions to Cus-
toms as the operative date of notice because Commerce’s
earlier publication in the Federal Register had already pro-
vided notice to Customs that the suspension of liquidation
had lifted. Id. Nothing in that decision, or in our holding
today, prevents or requires that notice be provided in the
form of liquidation instructions from Commerce to Cus-
toms. Instead, the relevant event that triggers the date of
notice is the first publication of an unambiguous and public
notice that then becomes the starting point for the six-
month liquidation period, whatever form that may take.
See Int’l Trading, 281 F.3d at 1275.
In this case, Commerce issued unambiguous liquida-
tion instructions to Customs ending suspension of liquida-
tion on May 30, 2017, shortly after suspension lifted on
May 12, 2017. No prior publication, including the decision
in the AFMC Litigation, provided sufficient notice. See
J.A. 20. Accordingly, the Court of International Trade did
not err in determining that there was no genuine dispute
of material fact as to the date of notice.
Liquidation v. Reliquidation
Appellants further challenge the Court of International
Trade’s determination that Customs’ mislabeling of a no-
tice as “liquidation,” as opposed to “reliquidation,” was
harmless error. Appellants’ Br. 21–26. We agree with
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 9 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 10
Appellants that the December 1, 2017 notice regarding
AFI’s Tenth Subject Entry was erroneously labeled “liqui-
dation.”2 However, Appellants make no cognizable allega-
tion of harm. For example, § 1501 states explicitly that
“[n]otice of such reliquidation shall be given or transmitted
in the manner prescribed with respect to original liquida-
tions under section 1500(e) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1501.
Here, there are no allegations that the notice was deficient
in any manner, except for the missing “re” in “reliquida-
tion.”
Informed importers are aware that, under the estab-
lished statutory scheme, Customs has six months from the
notice of the removal of the suspension [§ 1504(d)] plus an
additional 90 days from any liquidation or reliquidation
[§ 1501] to notify an importer of the “the final computation
or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or
drawback entries” [19 C.F.R. § 159.1]. Here, notice was
provided within that window. Appellants had no expecta-
tion of finality at the time of any challenged notice. To be
clear, we do not hold that cognizable harm cannot result
from Customs mislabeling its key notices. Rather, we hold
that, in this case, Appellants have not alleged any such
harm. Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Interna-
tional Trade’s decision that the labeling error was harm-
less.
2 Similarly, it appears that Customs’ February 16,
2018 notice regarding IMSS’s Subject Entry was also mis-
labeled as a “liquidation.” See J.A. 278. However, Appel-
lants’ argument regarding mislabeling is limited to the
December 1, 2017 notice regarding AFI’s Tenth Subject
Entry, and we limit our review accordingly.
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 10 of 11 --

ASPECTS FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL , INC. v. US 11
CONCLUSION
We affirm the decision of the Court of International
Trade. We have considered the parties’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 21-2060 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 07/28/2022

-- 11 of 11 --