Adee Honey Farms v. United States

2020 CIT 184

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adee Honey Farms v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 450 F. Supp. 3d 1365 →

United States Court of International Trade·Decided December 21, 2020·No. Consol. 16-00127·Published

Opinion

SlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ184ȱ ȱ UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ ȱ ȱ ADEEȱHONEYȱFARMS,ȱetȱal.,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffs,ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱChiefȱJudgeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱv.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱConsol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ16Ȭ00127ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱetȱal.,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDefendants.ȱ ȱ

OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ

[Grantingȱinȱpartȱandȱdenyingȱinȱpartȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱ administrativeȱrecordȱbyȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱmaterialsȱ relevantȱtoȱaȱdecisionȱreachedȱuponȱtheȱ2001ȱpromulgationȱofȱanȱagencyȱregulation]ȱ ȱ Dated:ȱȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2020ȱ

CameronȱR.ȱArgetsinger,ȱPaulȱC.ȱRosenthal,ȱMichaelȱJ.ȱCoursey,ȱJohnȱM.ȱHerrmannȱII,ȱ andȱJenniferȱE.ȱMcCadney,ȱKelleyȱDryeȱ&ȱWarrenȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱallȱ plaintiffsȱexceptȱMontereyȱMushrooms,ȱInc.ȱ ȱ LouisȱS.ȱMastriani,ȱAdduci,ȱMastrianiȱ&ȱSchaumberg,ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ forȱplaintiffsȱinȱconsolidatedȱcaseȱ16Ȭ00131,ȱA&SȱCrawfishȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates.ȱ ȱ JustinȱR.ȱMiller,ȱAttorneyȬinȬCharge,ȱInternationalȱTradeȱFieldȱOffice,ȱandȱBeverlyȱ A.ȱFarrell,ȱTrialȱAttorney,ȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱNY,ȱforȱdefendants.ȱȱWithȱthemȱonȱtheȱbriefȱ wereȱJeffreyȱBossertȱClark,ȱActingȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱandȱJeanneȱE.ȱDavidson,ȱ Director,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱU.S.ȱ DepartmentȱofȱJustice.ȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱChiefȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffs,ȱwhoȱqualifiedȱasȱ“affectedȱdomesticȱproducers”ȱ

underȱtheȱControlledȱDumpingȱandȱSubsidyȱOffsetȱActȱofȱ2000,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675cȱ Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 2

(“CDSOA”),ȱcontestedȱaȱdecisionȱofȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱ(“Customs”ȱorȱ

“CBP”)ȱnotȱtoȱincludeȱ“delinquency”ȱinterest,ȱi.e.,ȱpostȬliquidationȱinterestȱpaidȱonȱ

antidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1505(b),ȱinȱtheȱ

distributionsȱthatȱplaintiffsȱreceivedȱfromȱCustomsȱunderȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱAȱpriorȱOpinionȱ

andȱOrderȱofȱthisȱCourt,ȱAdeeȱHoneyȱFarmsȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

1365ȱ(2020)ȱ(“AdeeȱHoneyȱI”),ȱdismissedȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱasȱuntimely,ȱ

allowingȱtoȱproceedȱonlyȱtheȱclaimsȱpertainingȱtoȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱ

withinȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱFollowingȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱAdeeȱ

HoneyȱI,ȱdefendantsȱsubmittedȱasȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱpursuantȱtoȱUSCITȱRuleȱ73.3ȱ

certainȱinformationȱfromȱCDP’sȱrevenueȱdepartmentȱpertainingȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱ

forȱwhichȱthisȱCourtȱheldȱplaintiffsȱtoȱhaveȱmadeȱtimelyȱclaims.ȱ

Plaintiffsȱmoveȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱfiledȱbyȱdefendantsȱandȱalsoȱ

moveȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreplyȱtoȱdefendants’ȱoppositionȱtoȱtheirȱmotion.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱ

discussedȱbelow,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱorderȱtheȱstrikingȱofȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱasȱ

previouslyȱfiledȱbutȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecord.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱgrantsȱ

plaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱ

I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ

BackgroundȱisȱsetȱforthȱinȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱwithȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱpresumesȱ

familiarity.ȱȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1367–70.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱmovedȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱ

administrativeȱrecordȱonȱSeptemberȱ15,ȱ2020,ȱfilingȱaȱrevisedȱmotionȱtheȱnextȱday.ȱȱMot.ȱ Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 3

toȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ(Sept.ȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ94,ȱ95ȱ(“MotionȱtoȱStrike”ȱorȱ“Pls.’ȱ

Mot.”).ȱȱDefendantsȱopposedȱtheȱmotionȱonȱOctoberȱ16,ȱ2020.ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱtoȱPls.’ȱMotȱ

toȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱandȱMot.ȱforȱaȱStayȱofȱProceedingsȱ(Oct.ȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ99ȱ

(“Defs.’ȱResp.”).ȱȱPlaintiffsȱthenȱmovedȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreplyȱinȱsupportȱofȱtheirȱ

MotionȱtoȱStrike.ȱȱMot.ȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱReplyȱinȱSupp.ȱofȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱ

R.ȱ(Oct.ȱ21,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ100.ȱȱOnȱNovemberȱ12,ȱ2020,ȱdefendantsȱopposedȱtheȱ

grantingȱofȱleaveȱtoȱreply.ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱinȱOpp’nȱToȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱaȱReplyȱ

inȱSupp.ȱofȱtheirȱMot.ȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ(Nov.ȱ12,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ101ȱ(“Defs.’ȱ

Resp.ȱtoȱMot.ȱforȱLeave”).ȱ

II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ

A.ȱTheȱContentsȱofȱaȱCompleteȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱ

ThisȱcauseȱofȱactionȱaroseȱunderȱtheȱAdministrativeȱProcedureȱActȱ(“APA”),ȱ

5ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ701ȱetȱseq.ȱȱInȱcasesȱarisingȱunderȱtheȱAPA,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtoȱreviewȱanȱ“agencyȱ

action”ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱ“theȱwholeȱrecordȱorȱthoseȱpartsȱofȱitȱcitedȱbyȱaȱparty.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ706.ȱȱ

Asȱaȱgeneralȱmatter,ȱtheȱrecordȱisȱtoȱconsistȱofȱ“(A)ȱaȱcopyȱofȱtheȱcontestedȱ

determinationȱandȱtheȱfindingsȱorȱreportȱuponȱwhichȱsuchȱdeterminationȱwasȱbased;ȱ

(B)ȱaȱcopyȱofȱanyȱreportedȱhearingsȱorȱconferencesȱconductedȱbyȱtheȱagency;ȱandȱ

(C)ȱanyȱdocuments,ȱcomments,ȱorȱotherȱpapersȱfiledȱbyȱtheȱpublic,ȱinterestedȱparties,ȱorȱ

governmentsȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱaction.”ȱȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2635(d)(1);ȱseeȱalsoȱUSCITȱ

R.ȱ73.3(a).ȱ Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 4

Inȱtheȱspecificȱinstanceȱinȱwhichȱaȱpartyȱcontestsȱaȱruleȱorȱregulationȱthatȱanȱ

agencyȱpromulgatedȱaccordingȱtoȱnoticeȬandȬcommentȱrulemaking,ȱtheȱrecordȱconsistsȱ

ofȱtheȱinformationȱtheȱagencyȱconsideredȱatȱtheȱtimeȱtheȱcontestedȱdecisionȱwasȱmade.ȱȱ

SeeȱCitizensȱtoȱPreserveȱOvertonȱPark,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱVolpe,ȱ401ȱU.S.ȱ402,ȱ420ȱ(1971)ȱ(orderingȱtheȱ

DistrictȱCourtȱtoȱconsiderȱ“theȱfullȱadministrativeȱrecordȱthatȱwasȱbeforeȱtheȱSecretaryȱ

atȱtheȱtimeȱheȱmadeȱhisȱdecision”),ȱabrogatedȱonȱotherȱgroundsȱbyȱCalifanoȱv.ȱSanders,ȱ430ȱ

U.S.ȱ99,ȱ105ȱ(1977).ȱȱInȱthisȱlitigation,ȱtheȱcontestedȱruleȱ(theȱ“FinalȱRule”)ȱwasȱpublishedȱ

inȱ2001.ȱȱDistributionȱofȱContinuedȱDumpingȱandȱSubsidyȱOffsetȱtoȱAffectedȱDomesticȱ

Producers,ȱ66ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ48,546ȱ(Dept.ȱTreas.ȱCustomsȱServ.ȱSept.ȱ21,ȱ2001)ȱ(codifiedȱatȱ

19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§§ȱ159.61–64,ȱ178ȱ(2002))ȱ(“FinalȱRule”).ȱȱInȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱCustomsȱmadeȱaȱ

finalȱdeterminationȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱfromȱCDSOAȱdistributions.ȱȱSeeȱ

AdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1369.

Asȱwithȱagencyȱactionȱinȱgeneral,ȱaȱpresumptionȱofȱregularityȱappliesȱtoȱtheȱ

compilationȱofȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱasȱfiledȱandȱcertifiedȱbyȱtheȱgovernment.ȱȱSee,ȱ

e.g.,ȱDeukmejianȱv.ȱNuclearȱRegul.ȱComm’n,ȱ751ȱF.2dȱ1287,ȱ1325ȱ(D.C.ȱCir.ȱ1987)ȱ(“Wereȱ

courtsȱcavalierlyȱtoȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[t]heȱacceptedȱdeferenceȱofȱcourtȱtoȱ

agencyȱwouldȱbeȱturnedȱonȱitsȱhead”)ȱvacatedȱinȱpartȱandȱrehearingȱenȱbancȱgrantedȱonȱ

otherȱgrounds,ȱSanȱLuisȱObispoȱMothersȱforȱPeaceȱv.ȱNRC,ȱ760ȱF.2dȱ1320ȱ(D.C.Cir.1985).ȱȱ

TheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱhasȱcounseledȱthatȱ“supplementationȱofȱ

theȱrecordȱshouldȱbeȱlimitedȱtoȱcasesȱinȱwhichȱtheȱomissionȱofȱextraȬrecordȱevidenceȱ Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 5

precludesȱeffectiveȱjudicialȱreview.”ȱȱAgustaWestlandȱN.ȱAm.,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ880ȱ

F.3dȱ1326,ȱ1331ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2018).ȱ

Here,ȱplaintiffsȱobjectȱthatȱtheȱcurrentȱrecordȱisȱinadequateȱinȱthreeȱways:ȱfirst,ȱ

thatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱcontainȱtheȱdocumentsȱbeforeȱCustomsȱwhenȱCustomsȱmadeȱtheȱ

decisionȱinȱ2001ȱtoȱpromulgateȱtheȱFinalȱRule;ȱsecond,ȱthatȱitȱisȱimproperlyȱcertified,ȱasȱ

theȱcertificationȱisȱbyȱanȱofficerȱofȱaȱdivisionȱofȱCustomsȱotherȱthanȱtheȱOfficeȱofȱ

RegulationsȱandȱRulings,ȱwhichȱpromulgatedȱtheȱFinalȱRule;ȱand,ȱthird,ȱthatȱitȱcontainsȱ

documentsȱthatȱpostȬdateȱtheȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱcouldȱnotȱ

constituteȱtheȱrecordȱofȱwhatȱtheȱagencyȱconsideredȱwhenȱmakingȱtheȱ2001ȱ

promulgationȱdecision.ȱȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱ4–5.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconsidersȱtheseȱobjectionsȱtoȱbeȱ

variationsȱofȱaȱsingleȱargument,ȱwhichȱisȱthatȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱmustȱbeȱthatȱ

record,ȱandȱonlyȱthatȱrecord,ȱwhichȱpertainsȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustomsȱtoȱpromulgateȱ

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI