Protest and Application for further Review No. 2704-94-101678; deemed liquidation; 19 U.S.C. 1504(d); Canadian FurTrappers Corp. v. United States; HQ 225885

HQ 225674 June 21, 1995 LIQ-4-01/LIQ-11-R:C:E 225674 CC CATEGORY: Liquidation 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