Hilex Poly Co. v. United States

2020 CIT 186

Opinion

SlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ186ȱ

ȱ

UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ ȱ ȱ HILEXȱPOLYȱCO.,ȱLLC,ȱetȱal.,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffs,ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱChiefȱJudgeȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱv.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ17Ȭ00090ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱetȱal.,ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDefendants.ȱ ȱ

OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ

[Grantingȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱcorrect,ȱsupplementȱand/orȱstrikeȱtheȱ administrativeȱrecordȱbyȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱmaterialsȱ relevantȱtoȱaȱdecisionȱreachedȱuponȱtheȱ2001ȱpromulgationȱofȱanȱagencyȱregulation]ȱ ȱ Dated:ȱȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2020ȱ

J.ȱMichaelȱTaylor,ȱJeffreyȱM.ȱTelep,ȱandȱNealȱJ.ȱReynolds,ȱKingȱ&ȱSpaldingȱLLP,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffs.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 (“CDSOA”),ȱcontestedȱaȱdecisionȱofȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱ(“Customs”ȱorȱ “CBP”)ȱnotȱtoȱincludeȱ“delinquency”ȱinterest,ȱi.e.,ȱpostȬliquidationȱinterestȱpaidȱonȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 2

antidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1505(b),ȱinȱtheȱ distributionsȱthatȱplaintiffsȱreceivedȱfromȱCustomsȱunderȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱAȱpriorȱOpinionȱ andȱOrderȱofȱthisȱCourt,ȱHilexȱPolyȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1390ȱ (2020)ȱ(“HilexȱPolyȱI”),ȱdismissedȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱasȱuntimely,ȱallowingȱ toȱproceedȱonlyȱtheȱclaimsȱpertainingȱtoȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱwithinȱtheȱ twoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱFollowingȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱHilexȱPolyȱI,ȱ defendantsȱsubmittedȱasȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱpursuantȱtoȱUSCITȱRuleȱ73.3ȱcertainȱ informationȱfromȱCDP’sȱrevenueȱdepartmentȱpertainingȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱforȱwhichȱ thisȱCourtȱheldȱplaintiffsȱtoȱhaveȱmadeȱtimelyȱclaims.ȱ Plaintiffsȱmoveȱtoȱcorrect,ȱsupplementȱand/orȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱ filedȱbyȱdefendants.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱorderȱtheȱ strikingȱofȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱasȱpreviouslyȱfiledȱbutȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱ supplementȱthatȱrecord.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ

BackgroundȱisȱsetȱforthȱinȱHilexȱPolyȱI,ȱwithȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱpresumesȱfamiliarity.ȱȱ HilexȱPolyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1392–94.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱfiledȱtheirȱmotionȱtoȱ“correct,ȱ supplement,ȱand/orȱstrike”ȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord,ȱandȱtoȱstayȱbriefing,ȱonȱ Septemberȱ22,ȱ2020.ȱȱMot.ȱtoȱCorrect,ȱSuppl.,ȱand/orȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱandȱMot.ȱtoȱ StayȱBriefingȱ(Sept.ȱ22,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ67ȱ(“MotionȱtoȱCorrect”ȱorȱ“Pls.’ȱMot.”).ȱȱ DefendantsȱopposedȱtheȱmotionȱonȱOctoberȱ16,ȱ2020.ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱtoȱPls.’ȱMotȱtoȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 3

Correct,ȱSuppl.,ȱand/orȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱandȱMot.ȱtoȱStayȱBriefingȱ(Oct.ȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱ ECFȱNo.ȱ70ȱ(“Defs.’ȱResp.”).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 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

Court No. 17-00090 Page 4

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 HilexȱPolyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1394.

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 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,ȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 5

containȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱSenatorsȱCharlesȱGrassleyȱandȱJohnȱThuneȱandȱ CustomsȱCommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱregardingȱtheȱfailureȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱ interest.ȱȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱ2–3.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconsidersȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱobjectionsȱtoȱbeȱvariationsȱofȱ theȱsameȱargument,ȱwhichȱisȱthatȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱmustȱbeȱthatȱrecord,ȱandȱ onlyȱthatȱrecord,ȱwhichȱpertainsȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustomsȱtoȱpromulgateȱtheȱFinalȱ Rule.ȱȱRegardingȱtheȱthirdȱobjection,ȱtheȱrecordȱisȱrequiredȱtoȱinclude,ȱasȱaȱgeneralȱ matter,ȱ“anyȱdocuments,ȱcomments,ȱorȱotherȱpapersȱfiledȱbyȱtheȱpublic,ȱinterestedȱ parties,ȱorȱgovernmentsȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱaction.”ȱȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2635(d)(1)(C);ȱ USCITȱR.ȱ73.3(a).ȱȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱmindfulȱthatȱitȱisȱtheȱagency’sȱresponsibilityȱ toȱcompileȱandȱcertifyȱtheȱcompleteȱrecordȱinȱtheȱfirstȱinstance.ȱȱSeeȱFl.ȱPowerȱ&ȱLightȱCo.ȱ v.ȱLorion,ȱ470ȱU.S.ȱ729,ȱ744ȱ(1985)ȱ(“[A]genciesȱtypicallyȱcompileȱrecordsȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱ informalȱagencyȱaction.”).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconsidersȱitȱprematureȱtoȱorderȱtheȱinclusionȱorȱ exclusionȱofȱanyȱspecificȱdocumentȱatȱthisȱstageȱofȱtheȱlitigationȱ(butȱalsoȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱ correspondenceȱinȱquestionȱalreadyȱisȱbeforeȱtheȱcourt).ȱ

B.ȱTheȱHoldingsȱofȱHilexȱPolyȱIȱ ȱ PlaintiffsȱclaimȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱthatȱCBP’sȱrefusalȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱ

interestȱwasȱunlawfulȱasȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱDefendants,ȱinȱmovingȱtoȱdismiss,ȱ arguedȱthatȱallȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱwereȱuntimelyȱunderȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱ limitationsȱbecauseȱtheȱagencyȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱwasȱmadeȱ inȱ2001ȱandȱplaintiffsȱdidȱnotȱassertȱanyȱclaimsȱuntilȱ2016.ȱȱRejectingȱthisȱargument,ȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 6

HilexȱPolyȱIȱheld,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱpayȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱasȱ madeȱuponȱtheȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱisȱtheȱdecisionȱbeingȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱ litigationȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱplaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱ wheneverȱtheyȱreceiveȱaȱCDSOAȱdistribution,ȱalthoughȱtheȱscopeȱofȱreliefȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱ thoseȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱmadeȱwithinȱtwoȱyearsȱofȱtheȱcommencementȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱȱ Seeȱ450ȱF.Supp.3dȱatȱ1400–02ȱ(plaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱaȱregulationȱ eachȱtimeȱitȱisȱappliedȱtoȱthemȱandȱeachȱCDSOAȱdistributionȱconstitutesȱaȱseparateȱ applicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigation).ȱ Contraryȱtoȱdefendants’ȱpositionȱinȱopposingȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱCorrect,ȱHilexȱ PolyȱIȱdidȱnotȱlimitȱtheȱissueȱtoȱbeȱlitigatedȱtoȱwhetherȱtheȱregulationsȱwereȱproperlyȱ appliedȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱwithinȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱContraȱDefs.’ȱ Resp.ȱ3ȱ(“[T]heȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱtoȱtheȱdistributionsȱisȱtheȱonlyȱ determinationȱavailableȱforȱplaintiffsȱtoȱchallenge.”).ȱȱHilexȱPolyȱIȱheld,ȱrather,ȱthatȱ plaintiffsȱmayȱchallengeȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱasȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlawȱ butȱalsoȱthatȱanyȱpotentialȱremedyȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱ withinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱ

C.ȱTheȱNeedȱforȱaȱCompleteȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱ ȱ TheȱrecordȱasȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱconsistsȱofȱdocumentationȱrelatingȱtoȱthoseȱCDSOAȱ

distributionsȱmadeȱtoȱplaintiffsȱwithinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱToȱanswerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ theȱlegalityȱofȱCBP’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱtheȱcourtȱmustȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 7

reviewȱ“theȱfullȱadministrativeȱrecord”ȱthatȱwasȱbeforeȱtheȱagencyȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ 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.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱattachedȱtoȱtheirȱMotionȱtoȱCorrectȱaȱ2016ȱletterȱfromȱthenȬ CommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱtoȱSenatorȱCharlesȱGrassley,ȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱEx.ȱ2,ȱwhich,ȱwhileȱ addressingȱCBP’sȱinterpretationȱofȱSectionȱ605ȱofȱtheȱTradeȱFacilitationȱandȱTradeȱ EnforcementȱActȱofȱ2015,ȱalsoȱindicatesȱthatȱCustomsȱpossessedȱdocumentsȱrelevantȱtoȱ congressionalȱintentȱthatȱcouldȱconstituteȱlegislativeȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱInȱtheȱ

Court No. 17-00090 Page 8

letter,ȱCommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱrefersȱtoȱtechnologicalȱ“gaps”ȱpreventingȱtheȱ automatedȱdistributionȱbyȱCustomsȱofȱdelinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱCBP’sȱ “internalȱanalysis,”ȱtheȱletterȱassertsȱthatȱ“Congressȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱawareȱofȱtheseȱ gapsȱinȱtechnologicalȱcapabilitiesȱwhenȱtheȱCDSOAȱwasȱenacted.”ȱȱId.ȱȱCustomsȱmustȱ nowȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourtȱwithȱallȱdocumentsȱandȱinformationȱ relevantȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱfromȱCDSOAȱ distributions,ȱaȱdecisionȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule.ȱȱRegardingȱtheȱ2016ȱletterȱ itself,ȱitȱisȱforȱCustomsȱinȱtheȱfirstȱinstanceȱtoȱdetermineȱifȱitȱisȱpartȱofȱthatȱrecord.ȱ Plaintiffsȱrequestȱthatȱtheȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱrecordȱbeȱeitherȱcorrected,ȱ supplemented,ȱorȱstruck.ȱȱTheȱcurrentȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourt,ȱwhileȱnotȱpertainingȱtoȱ theȱinitialȱagencyȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱmayȱyetȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱissuesȱ inȱthisȱlitigation,ȱshouldȱplaintiffsȱultimatelyȱprevailȱandȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtoȱorderȱspecificȱ monetaryȱrelief.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱseesȱnoȱprejudiceȱtoȱanyȱpartyȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ theseȱdocumentsȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱ supplementȱtheȱrecordȱbutȱwillȱnotȱorderȱtheȱstrikingȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱalreadyȱsubmitted.ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱORDERȱ Forȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantsȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱcorrect,ȱ supplementȱand/orȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord.ȱȱDeferringȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱ uponȱaȱpresumptionȱofȱregularityȱandȱaȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱpreviouslyȬfiledȱdocumentsȱ potentiallyȱmayȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱaȱremedy,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱstrikeȱthoseȱdocumentsȱ

9

butȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱallȱmaterialsȱandȱinformationȱ relevantȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ delinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱTherefore,ȱuponȱallȱreviewȱofȱallȱtheȱpapersȱherein,ȱandȱuponȱdueȱ deliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ

ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱCorrect,ȱSupplementȱand/orȱStrikeȱtheȱ AdministrativeȱRecordȱ(Septemberȱ22,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ67,ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱgranted;ȱitȱ isȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendants,ȱwithinȱsixtyȱ(60)ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱ andȱOrder,ȱshallȱsupplementȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱwithȱtheȱmaterialsȱrelevantȱtoȱ theȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱeffectuatedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ delinquencyȱinterest;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