H303403

90 K Street N.E., Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H303403 September 27, 2021 LIQ 4-01 H303403 SMS OT:RR:CTF:ER U.S. Customs and Border Protection Port Director 17801 Pacific Highway S Seattle, WA 98158-1249 Attn: Heather M. Scott, Supervisory Import Specialist RE: Application for Further Review of Protest Numbers 3001-2018-100017 and 3001-2018-100018; Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China under Antidumping Order 570-890. Dear Port Director: The following is our decision regarding the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest Number 3001-18-100017, filed on behalf of T&J International, LLC, d/b/a Lime Tree Sourcing (“Lime Tree”) on January 31, 2018, which contests the antidumping duties (“ADD”) and interest assessed on its entries of wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”). We note that Protest Number 3001-18-100017 is the lead protest, and this ruling also addresses the identical arguments presented in Protest Number 3001-18-100018, also filed by Lime Tree on January 31, 2018. FACTS: On July 11, 2014 and July 17, 2014, Lime Tree made two entries containing WBF from the Peoples Republic of China (“China” or “PRC”), exported by Shanghai Jian Pu Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Jian Pu”), and assigned entry numbers, xxx-xxxx810-7 and xxx-xxxx849-5, respectively. Both entries were entered as “03,” as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, and their U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Entry Summary Forms 7501 specifically contain the following product descriptions: Other Wooden Bedroom Furniture 9403.50.9080 A-570-890-122 . . . Other Wooden Furniture 9403.60.8081.” Additionally, contained in the Shanghai Jian Pu issued invoices the subject merchandise is described as: Two-Drawer Dresser with Dresser Top; Three-Drawer Nightstand; Television Cabinets/Stand with Two Doors; and Armoire Tower Base and Deck Unit. Lime Tree made ADD cash deposits of 6.68 percent ad valorem at the time of entry, for the above listed product descriptions included in both entries. On January 4, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “DOC”) published its determination of sales of WBF from China at less than fair market value. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 70 Fed. Reg. 329 (Jan. 4, 2005) (“WBF Order”) (see also message 5033207, February 2, 2005). In this Order Commerce stated that it intended to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated ADD on entries subject to the order. Id. at 330. Subsequently, on March 2, 2015, Commerce issued a notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews including the WBF Order for the period of review from January 1, 2014, until December 31, 2014, for specific manufacturers including Shanghai Jian Pu. See 80 Fed. Reg. 11,166, 70 (Mar. 2, 2015). On April 11, 2016, Commerce published its Final Results for the 2014 administrative review period, finding that Shanghai Jian Pu failed to establish eligibility for a separate entity rate and assigning it the NME-wide entity rate. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Determination of No Shipments, In Part 2014 Administrative Review, 81 Fed. Reg. 21,319 (Apr. 11, 2016) (“Final Results”). See also DOC Message No. 6110303 (Apr. 19, 2016). Additionally, Commerce no longer chose to consider American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc.’s (collectively, “AFMC”) claims of duty evasion by Shanghai Jian Pu. 69 Fed. Reg. 21,319. As a result of this dismissal, AFMC filed suit with the Court of International Trade (“CIT”), challenging Commerce’s failure to review its claim of duty evasion by Shanghai Jian Pu. On April 27, 2016, the CIT issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the liquidation of entries of WBF, exported by Shanghai Jian Pu in 2014. Commerce then issued Message Number 6123302 dated May 2, 2016, advising CBP of a preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of the relevant entries. See DOC Message No. 6123302 (May 2, 2016). On March 13, 2017, the CIT granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the action, finding that AFMC received the relief it sought when Shanghai Jian Pu was found ineligible for an entity specific rate. See American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., v. United States, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 24 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2017). On May 30, 2017, Commerce issued Message 7150306 advising that, On 03/13/2017, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a final decision in the case of American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. v. United States (16-00070). As a result of this decision, the injunction to which message 6123302 refers enjoining liquidation of entries which are subject to the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic of China for the period 01/01/2014 through 12/31/2014 exported by Shanghai Jian Pu Import & Export Co., Ltd. dissolved on 05/12/2017. This message also instructed CBP to liquidate entries exported by Shanghai Jian Pu at the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent. See DOC Message 7150306 (May. 30, 2017). On October 27, 2017, CBP liquidated both of Lime Tree’s entries at the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent. Lime Tree protested the liquation of its entries on January 31, 2018. Lime Tree asserts in its protests that its entries are not subject to ADD “due to the construction of the imported goods.” Additionally, Lime Tree contends that the entries deemed liquidated as a matter of law. Lime Tree contends that the CIT injunction “was dissolved on 05/12/2017 after determination of USCIT Case No. 16-00070, as reflected in CBP Message No. 7150306. As a result, the asserted liquidation date of 10/27/17 occurred more than six (6) months after receiving notice of the removal of the suspension of liquidation; and more than six (6) months after the injunction was dissolved.” Lastly, Lime Tree implores CBP to grant relief from the rate advance and interest because it “has no history of non-compliance with CBP regulations.” ISSUE: Whether CBP properly liquidated Lime Tree’s entries. LAW AND ANAYLSIS: Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514, CBP decisions are final unless a protest is timely filed against that decision in accordance with § 1514(c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a). Specifically, a protest must be filed within 180 days from the date of liquidation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5); 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e). Here, the two entries were liquidated on October 27, 2017. Subsequently, on January 31, 2018, Lime Tree protested these liquidations, within 180 days. Generally, it is well settled that when assessing and collecting ADD, CBP merely follows Commerce’s instructions. See Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The courts have consistently held that CBP’s role in the antidumping process is simply to follow Commerce’s instructions in collecting deposits of estimated duties and in assessing antidumping duties, together with interest, at the time of liquidation. See Fujitsu Ten Corporation of America v. United States, 21 C.I.T. 104, 107 (1997); and American Hi-Fi International, Inc. v United States, 19 C.I.T. 1340, 1342-43 (1995). In Mitsubishi, the Court held that “CBP has a merely ministerial role in liquidating antidumping duties.” 44 F.3d at 977. Thus, CBP simply applies the antidumping duty rates determined by Commerce to entries of merchandise in accordance with Commerce’s liquidation instructions. “Customs, incident to its ‘ministerial’ function of fixing the amount of duties chargeable, must make factual findings to determine ‘what the merchandise is, and whether it is described in an order’ and must decide whether to apply the order to the mer

that CBP has a ministerial role in liquidating antidumping duties and “cannot modify Commerce’s determinations, their underlying facts, or their enforcement”); HQ H258302 (Sept. 3, 2015) (finding that “because the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders was clear and CBP acted in accordance with Commerce’s instructions, CBP acted in its ministerial capacity when it liquidated its entries” and the protest “failed to raise a protestable issue”). Accordingly, “where CBP can conclude that a product falls within the words of the order, both the affirmative scope language and any exclusions, CBP properly requires an importer to enter its goods as subject to an order.” Sunpreme, Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1202 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016). The inquiry “comes down to whether CBP can determine that merchandise falls within the common meaning of the scope language based upon observable physical characteristics.” Id. If the importer believes that CBP has made a mistake of fact and does not want its goods to be covered by the order, the remedy is to seek a scope ruling. See LDA Incorporado, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 1342 n.12. The importer can request that CBP extend the time for liquidation if there is good cause. 19 C.F.R. § 159.12(a)(1)(ii).At issue in this case is the WBF Order issued by Commerce in January 2005. See 70 Fed. Reg. 329. The scope of the order described the covered merchandise as follows:The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. . . . .The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wood