Adee Honey Farms v. United States

2020 CIT 184

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 theȱFinalȱRule.ȱ

B.ȱTheȱHoldingsȱofȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱ ȱ PlaintiffsȱclaimȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱthatȱCBP’sȱrefusalȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱ

interestȱwasȱunlawfulȱasȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱDefendants,ȱinȱmovingȱtoȱdismiss,ȱ arguedȱthatȱallȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱwereȱuntimelyȱunderȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱ limitationsȱbecauseȱtheȱagencyȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱwasȱmadeȱ inȱ2001ȱandȱplaintiffsȱdidȱnotȱassertȱanyȱclaimsȱuntilȱ2016.ȱȱRejectingȱthisȱargument,ȱAdeeȱ HoneyȱIȱheld,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱpayȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱasȱmadeȱ

Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 6

uponȱtheȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱisȱtheȱdecisionȱbeingȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱ litigationȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱplaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱ wheneverȱtheyȱreceiveȱaȱCDSOAȱdistribution,ȱalthoughȱtheȱscopeȱofȱreliefȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱ thoseȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱmadeȱwithinȱtwoȱyearsȱofȱtheȱcommencementȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱȱ Seeȱ450ȱF.Supp.3dȱatȱ1376–78ȱ(plaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱaȱregulationȱ eachȱtimeȱitȱisȱappliedȱtoȱthemȱandȱeachȱCDSOAȱdistributionȱconstitutesȱaȱseparateȱ applicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigation).ȱ Contraryȱtoȱdefendants’ȱpositionȱinȱopposingȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrike,ȱAdeeȱ HoneyȱIȱdidȱnotȱlimitȱtheȱissueȱtoȱbeȱlitigatedȱtoȱwhetherȱtheȱregulationsȱwereȱproperlyȱ appliedȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱwithinȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱContraȱDefs.’ȱ Resp.ȱ3ȱ(“[T]heȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱtoȱtheȱdistributionsȱisȱtheȱonlyȱ determinationȱavailableȱforȱplaintiffsȱtoȱchallenge.”).ȱȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱheld,ȱrather,ȱthatȱ plaintiffsȱmayȱchallengeȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱasȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlawȱ butȱalsoȱthatȱanyȱpotentialȱremedyȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱ withinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱ

C.ȱTheȱNeedȱforȱaȱCompleteȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱ ȱ TheȱrecordȱasȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱconsistsȱofȱdocumentationȱrelatingȱtoȱthoseȱCDSOAȱ

distributionsȱmadeȱtoȱplaintiffsȱwithinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱToȱanswerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ theȱlegalityȱofȱCBP’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱtheȱcourtȱmustȱ reviewȱ“theȱfullȱadministrativeȱrecord”ȱthatȱwasȱbeforeȱtheȱagencyȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ

Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 7

decision.ȱȱOvertonȱPark,ȱ401ȱU.S.ȱatȱ420.ȱȱHere,ȱtheȱfullȱrecordȱthatȱwasȱbeforeȱCustomsȱ whenȱtheȱregulatoryȱdecisionȱonȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱwasȱmadeȱisȱnotȱnowȱbeforeȱtheȱ court.ȱ Defendantsȱargueȱthatȱtheȱproposedȱrule,ȱpublicȱcomments,ȱandȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱ whichȱalreadyȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord,ȱareȱtheȱonlyȱdocumentsȱthatȱ “couldȱpossiblyȱbeȱrelevant.”ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱ6.ȱȱItȱisȱtrueȱthatȱtheȱprincipalȱissueȱbeforeȱtheȱ courtȱisȱoneȱofȱstatutoryȱinterpretation,ȱi.e.,ȱwhetherȱtheȱCDSOAȱrequiresȱCustomsȱtoȱ includeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱinȱCDSOAȱdistributions.ȱȱButȱthisȱissueȱisȱpartȱofȱtheȱlargerȱ inquiryȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱtheȱdecisionȱmadeȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱ interestȱwasȱ“arbitrary,ȱcapricious,ȱanȱabuseȱofȱdiscretion,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱ accordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱ5ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ706(2)(A).ȱ Contraryȱtoȱdefendants’ȱassertionȱthatȱnoȱadditionalȱdocumentsȱcouldȱbeȱ relevantȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱinquiry,ȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱpapersȱindicateȱthatȱCustomsȱcouldȱ possessȱrecordsȱpotentiallyȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱinquiryȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱregulationȱisȱ lawful.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱattachedȱtoȱtheirȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱaȱ2016ȱletterȱfromȱthenȬ CommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱtoȱSenatorȱCharlesȱGrassley,ȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱEx.ȱ2,ȱwhich,ȱwhileȱ addressingȱCBP’sȱinterpretationȱofȱSectionȱ605ȱofȱtheȱTradeȱFacilitationȱandȱTradeȱ EnforcementȱActȱofȱ2015,ȱalsoȱindicatesȱthatȱCustomsȱpossessedȱdocumentsȱrelevantȱtoȱ congressionalȱintentȱthatȱcouldȱconstituteȱlegislativeȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱInȱtheȱ letter,ȱCommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱrefersȱtoȱtechnologicalȱ“gaps”ȱpreventingȱtheȱ

Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 8

automatedȱdistributionȱbyȱCustomsȱofȱdelinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱCBP’sȱ “internalȱanalysis,”ȱtheȱletterȱassertsȱthatȱ“Congressȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱawareȱofȱtheseȱ gapsȱinȱtechnologicalȱcapabilitiesȱwhenȱtheȱCDSOAȱwasȱenacted.”ȱȱId.ȱȱCustomsȱmustȱ nowȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourtȱwithȱallȱdocumentsȱandȱinformationȱ relevantȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱfromȱCDSOAȱ distributions,ȱaȱdecisionȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule.ȱ Plaintiffsȱrequestȱthatȱtheȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱrecordȱbeȱstruck,ȱnotȱthatȱitȱbeȱ supplemented.ȱȱTheȱcurrentȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourt,ȱwhileȱnotȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱinitialȱ agencyȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱmayȱyetȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱissuesȱinȱthisȱ litigation,ȱshouldȱplaintiffsȱultimatelyȱprevailȱandȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtoȱorderȱspecificȱmonetaryȱ relief.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱseesȱnoȱprejudiceȱtoȱanyȱpartyȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱ documentsȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱ supplementȱtheȱrecordȱbutȱwillȱnotȱorderȱtheȱstrikingȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱalreadyȱsubmitted.ȱ

D.ȱPlaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱFileȱaȱReplyȱ ȱ Defendantsȱoppose,ȱonȱvariousȱgrounds,ȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱȱDefs.’ȱ

Resp.ȱtoȱMot.ȱforȱLeave.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱnotesȱthatȱinȱtheirȱresponseȱtoȱplaintiffs’ȱmotion,ȱ defendantsȱincorrectlyȱassertȱthatȱ“theȱdecisionȬmakingȱinȱdraftingȱandȱannouncingȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ159.64ȱand,ȱspecifically,ȱsectionȱ159.64(e)ȱ[provisionsȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule],ȱ cannotȱbeȱtheȱ‘contestedȱdecision’ȱbecauseȱplaintiffsȱareȱtimeȬbarredȱfromȱchallengingȱ it.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5ȱ(quotingȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1375ȱ(“Plaintiffsȱhaveȱnoȱvalidȱ

Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 9

claimsȱotherȱthanȱthoseȱrelatingȱtoȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱtoȱtheirȱindividualȱ distributions.”)).ȱȱDefendantsȱmisstateȱtheȱholdingȱofȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱareȱnotȱ timeȬbarredȱfromȱchallengingȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱCBP’sȱregulation.ȱȱTheȱsentenceȱtheyȱ quoteȱfromȱthisȱCourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱ theȱstatuteȱofȱlimitationsȱ(specifically,ȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱatȱwhichȱtheȱclaimsȱaccrued),ȱnotȱtoȱ theȱsubstantiveȱdecisionȱthatȱmayȱbeȱchallengedȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱDefendantsȱdisregardȱ thatȱlaterȱinȱtheȱopinionȱandȱorderȱisȱtheȱstatementȱthatȱ“theseȱplaintiffsȱmayȱchallengeȱ theȱsubstanceȱofȱCBP’sȱregulationsȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthemȱwithȱeachȱCDSOAȱdistributionȱtheyȱ receivedȱwithinȱtwoȱyearsȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱcommencementȱofȱtheirȱrespectiveȱactionsȱonȱ Julyȱ15,ȱ2016.”ȱȱAdeeȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1377ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱmisstatementȱinȱ defendants’ȱresponse,ȱwithȱwhichȱplaintiffsȱrightfullyȱtakeȱissueȱinȱtheirȱproposedȱreplyȱ brief,ȱisȱreasonȱenoughȱforȱtheȱcourt,ȱinȱitsȱdiscretion,ȱtoȱallowȱtheȱreplyȱbriefȱtoȱbeȱ filed.III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱORDERȱ Forȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantsȱinȱpartȱandȱdeniesȱinȱpartȱ plaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord.ȱȱDeferringȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱ uponȱaȱpresumptionȱofȱregularityȱandȱaȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱpreviouslyȬfiledȱdocumentsȱ potentiallyȱmayȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱaȱremedy,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱstrikeȱthoseȱdocumentsȱ butȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱallȱmaterialsȱandȱinformationȱ relevantȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ delinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱalsoȱgrantsȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱȱ

Therefore,ȱuponȱallȱreviewȱofȱallȱtheȱpapersȱherein,ȱandȱuponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱ herebyȱ

ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱ(Septemberȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ95,ȱbe,ȱ andȱherebyȱis,ȱgrantedȱinȱpartȱandȱdeniedȱinȱpart;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendants,ȱwithinȱsixtyȱ(60)ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱ andȱOrder,ȱshallȱsupplementȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱwithȱtheȱmaterialsȱrelevantȱtoȱ theȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱeffectuatedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ delinquencyȱinterest;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱReplyȱ(Octoberȱ21,ȱ2020),ȱ ECFȱNo.ȱ100,ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱgranted,ȱandȱplaintiffs’ȱproposedȱReplyȱinȱSupportȱofȱ Plaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱisȱdeemedȱfiled;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱdueȱdatesȱforȱtheȱfilingȱofȱfurtherȱbriefingȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱareȱ stayedȱpendingȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱsupplementȱtoȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord;ȱandȱitȱisȱ furtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱtheȱpartiesȱshallȱconsultȱand,ȱwithinȱfifteenȱ(15)ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱfilingȱ ofȱtheȱsupplementȱtoȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord,ȱsubmitȱaȱjointȱproposalȱforȱtheȱscheduleȱ thatȱwillȱgovernȱtheȱremainderȱofȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ _/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu______________ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ChiefȱJudgeȱ ȱ Dated:ȱȱȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2020ȱ NewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ