LIQ-4-01/LIQ-11-R:C:E 225674 CC
District Director
U.S. Customs Service
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island
San Pedro, CA 90731
RE: Protest and Application for further Review No. 2704-94-101678; deemed liquidation; 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); Canadian Fur
Trappers Corp. v. United States; HQ 225885
Dear Sir or Madam:
The above-referenced protest was forwarded to this office
for further review. We have considered the facts and issues
raised, and our decision follows.
FACTS:
According to the file, the entry of the merchandise the
subject of this protest was made on February 19, 1988. The
merchandise entered was certain steel pipe from India.
Antidumping duties at the rate of 7.08 percent were deposited at
the time of entry.
The merchandise at issue was the subject of an antidumping
investigation (case A-533-502). In a notice of preliminary
determination, published in the Federal Register on December 31,
1985 (50 FR 53356), Customs was instructed to suspend liquidation
for the subject merchandise entered on or after the date of
publication.
Notice of preliminary results of administrative review of
the subject merchandise for the manufacturer under consideration
were published in the Federal Register on June 10, 1991 (56 FR
26650). Notice of final results of administrative review of the
subject merchandise for the manufacturer under consideration were
published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1991 (56 FR
64753). In that notice, the dumping margin for the subject
merchandise was determined to be 77.32 percent. In addition, it
was stated in that notice "[t]he Department [of Commerce] shall
determine, and the United States Customs Service shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries [and] [t]he
Department shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs Service."
Customs did not receive appraisement or liquidation
instructions from the Department of Commerce for the merchandise
under consideration in the time period under consideration until
March 14, 1994 (Message No. 4073112). In those instructions,
Customs officers were instructed to liquidate all shipments of
the merchandise under consideration during the period from May 1,
1987 to April 30, 1988, with a dumping duty of 77.32 percent.
The protested entry was liquidated on April 29, 1994. The
protest was filed on June 10, 1994. The protestant argues that
suspension of liquidation was lifted when the Department of
Commerce published the final results of administrative review on
December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64753). Therefore, the protestant
contends that since suspension of liquidation was lifted within
four years of the entry date, the entry should have been deemed
liquidated (at the 7.08 percent antidumping rate deposited at the
time of entry) by operation of law four years from the date of
entry, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) and Nunn Bush Shoe Co. v.
United States, 16 CIT 45, 784 F. Supp. 892 (1992).
ISSUE:
Whether the subject entry was deemed liquidated by operation
of law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(d)?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Initially, we note that the protest was timely filed
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514(c).
In addition, we note that 19 U.S.C. 1504(d) was amended by
section 641, title VI - Customs Modernization, Public Law 103-182, the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
(107 Stat. 2057), enacted December 8, 1993. Title VI of Public
Law 103-182 took effect on the date of enactment of the Act
(section 692 of the Act). Since entry occurred prior to the date
of enactment, the amended law does not apply in this instance.
See HQ 225576 of November 15, 1994.
Our analysis in this protest is the same as that contained
in HQ 225885 of June 7, 1995, a similar protest relating to
the assessment of antidumping duties to steel pipes from India
and containing the same issues concerning deemed liquidation
(copy enclosed and incorporated into this ruling). In HQ 225885
we found that the suspension of liquidation is lifted when
Customs receives instructions from the Department of Commerce.
Since the suspension of liquidation was not lifted until more
than four years after entry, Nunn Bush is inapplicable and
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 612, 691 F.
Supp. 364 (1988), affirmed, 7 Fed. Cir. (T) 136, 884 F.2d 563
(1989), controls. The protested entry was liquidated promptly,
less than two months after the suspension of liquidation was
lifted. The protest is therefore denied.
HOLDING:
The subject entry was not deemed liquidated by operation of
law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(d). The protest is DENIED.
In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive
099 3550-065, dated August 4, 1993, Subject: Revised Protest
Directive, this decision should be mailed by your office to the
protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter.
Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision
must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty
days from the date of the decision the Office of Regulations and
Rulings will take steps to make the decision available to customs
personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in ACS and the public
via the Diskette Subscription Service, Freedom of Information Act
and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
Enclosure