LIQ-4-01 RR:IT:EC 224627
Port Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
300 South Ferry Street
Terminal Island CA 90731
RE: Application For Further Review of Protest 2704-92-100627 concerning the
assessment of antidumping duties (ADD) and interest and deemed liquidation;
Section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section
611(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff and Trade Act of 1984; 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); Kern-Liebers USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT Slip. Op. 95-50 (March 23, 1995);
Nunn-Bush and Weyco Group, Inc. United States, 16 CIT 45, 784 F. Supp. 892
(1992).
Dear Sir:
This Office has received the above-referenced application for further
review (AFR) of the protest as provided for under Customs regulations. We
have considered the protest and have made the following decision.
FACTS:
The televisions were made by Victor Company of Japan (JVC) and were
entered on September 14, 1987. The export invoice in the entry was issued
by Sigma (Japan) Ltd. The entry contains an antidumping reimbursement
certification in which the importer asserts that Sigma was the importer.
The entry papers contain several handwritten annotations to antidumping
case A-588-015-014. Block 34 of the entry summary form (CF 7501) for each
line item opposite the antidumping case number the figure "0.00%" as the
applicable rate of duty. The entry summary contains a typed annotation
which states that the entry was liquidated pursuant to message 1207115 of
July 26, 1991. The entry was liquidated on October 18, 1991.
A Federal Register notice (50 FR 24278) on June 10, 1985 relating to the
original finding of dumping published on March 10, 1971 (36 FR 4597)
published the final results of an administrative review for the period from
April 1, 1980 through March 31, 1981. That notice found a dumping margin
of 0.28 for Victor and imposed an estimated duty deposit requirement for
future entries but waived its collection under the de minimis concept.
The pertinent part of message 1207115 of July 26, 1991 provides:
6. Final results of Commerce reviews of the following companies
have been published in various Federal Register notices for the
periods listed and there are no injunctions barring liquidation.
a. For all shipments of Japanese television receiving sets
manufactured or exported by
the following firms and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption during the periods indicated, assess a dumping liability equal
to the indicated percentage of the U.S. price. U.S. price is equal to the
higher of the invoice price or the entered value less all deductions
necessary to arrive at
an ex-factory, packed price.
% Manufacturer Period Margin
(percent)
Exporter
xxx xxx x x x
Victor 03/01/87 - 02/28/90 35.40
There is some evidence that message 1207115 of July 26, 1991 was
issued as the result of liquidation instructions that were issued by the
Department of Commerce no later than July 23, 1991.
ISSUES:
Whether the liquidation of October 18, 1991 was correct in the
assessment of antidumping duties and interest.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The subject entry was liquidated on October 18, 1991, with ADD and
interest being assessed. This protest was timely filed within 90 days of
the liquidation date on January 13, 1992.
The decision in Nunn Bush and Weyco Group, Inc. v. U.S., 784 F. Supp.
892, 16 CIT 45 (1992) controls. Since the Customs records show that the
suspension had to have been lifted before the fourth-year anniversary of
the entry date, the liquidation on October 18, 1991, that is, after the
fourth anniversary, was voidable when timely protested.
The next issue concerns the words of 19 U.S.C. 1504(d), "... shall be
deemed liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity and amount of duty
asserted at the time of entry by the importer . . . " The decision in the
case of Wolff Shoe Co. v. U.S., CIT. Slip. Op. 96-138 (August 16, 1996)
30:36 Cust. Bull. 118, cross appeals pending, Nos. 97-1049 and 97-xxx
concerned entries that were deemed liquidated as a result of 19 U.S.C.
1504(d). In that case, the importer contended that Customs demanded the
cash deposit and that the importer actually did not make any assertion with
respect to countervailing duties. Therefore, according to the importer,
the entries became deemed liquidated without any countervailing duties and
a refund of the cash deposit was due. The court rejected the importer's
argument and held that where the importer was required to make and did make
a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties, the rate asserted at the
time of entry for purposes of 1504(d) was the cash deposit. 30:36 Cust.
Bull. at 123. We believe this principle applies equally in this protest,
and accordingly, we conclude that the importer asserted antidumping duties
at the cash deposit rate which was required and deposited upon entry, which
was 0.00%, and the entry became deemed liquidated with zero antidumping
duties.
Because of these considerations the other issues raised need not be
considered.
HOLDING:
The protest is granted to the extent that there was a deemed
liquidation and the amount of antidumping duty that was asserted at the
time of entry was 0.00%.
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,
Director
International Trade Compliance
Division