Veregy Central, LLC v. United States

• Court: United States Court of International Trade
• Decided: April 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-00229
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 26-33

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

VEREGY CENTRAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge

UNITED STATES, U.S. CUSTOMS AND Court No. 25-00229 BORDER PROTECTION AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

[Granting defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal.]

Dated: April 8, 2026

J. Kevin Horgan and Merisa A. Horgan, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff Veregy Central, LLC.

Guy Eddon, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for defendants United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Also on the brief were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge, International Trade Field Office, and Aimee Lee, Assistant Director.

* * *

Reif, Judge: Before the court is the motion to stay of defendants United States,

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) and the U.S. Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”). Defs.’ Mot. to Stay (“Mot. Stay”), ECF No. 17. Defendants

move to stay “any further action in the above-captioned case until a final decision in the

ongoing appeal in Auxin Solar et al. v. United States et al., Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2025- Court No. 25-00229 Page 2

2120 . . . including the resolution of any further appeals therefrom.” Mem. Supp. Defs’

Mot. to Stay (“Defs. Br.”) at 1, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Pl.’s Opp’n to

Defs.’ Mot. for Stay (“Pl. Br.”), ECF No. 18.

For the reasons discussed below, the court grants defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Veregy Central, LLC (“Veregy Central,” or “plaintiff”) is a Missouri company and a

wholly owned subsidiary of Veregy, LLC, which provides engineering and construction

services, including solar energy installation. 1 Compl. ¶¶ 2-3.

From January through March 2022, Veregy Central entered into two fixed-price

contracts for the installation of solar arrays at two airports in Illinois. Id. ¶ 10. To fulfill

those contracts, Veregy Central issued purchase orders for solar modules to Zhongli

Talesun Hong Kong Ltd. (“Talesun”). Id. The solar modules were to be produced by

Talesun’s affiliated companies in either Thailand or Vietnam. Id.

On April 1, 2022, Commerce initiated an investigation into whether solar modules

produced in and imported from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were

circumventing antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on crystalline

silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells from China. See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic

Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China:

Initiation of Circumvention Inquiry on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 87 Fed. Reg. 19,071 (Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 1, 2022).

1Veregy Central was known as Control Technology & Solutions (“CT&S”) until 2023. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 6. For the sake of simplicity, the court will refer to plaintiff as Veregy Central even when discussing events during which plaintiff was known as CT&S. Court No. 25-00229 Page 3

On June 6, 2022, the President issued Proclamation 10414, which authorized

Commerce to permit the importation of CSPV cells and modules from Cambodia,

Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam into the United States “free of the collection of duties

and estimated duties.” Proclamation No. 10414, Declaration of Emergency and

Authorization for Temporary Extensions of Time and Duty-Free Importation of Solar

Cells and Modules from Southeast Asia, 87 Fed. Reg. 35,067, 35,068 (June 6, 2022).

On September 16, 2022, Commerce issued a final rule to implement

Proclamation 10414. Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and

Estimated Duties in Accord with Presidential Proclamation 10414 (“Duty Suspension

Rule”), 87 Fed. Reg. 56,868 (Dep’t of Commerce Sep. 16, 2022).

From July through October 2022, Veregy Central entered four shipments of solar

modules supplied by Talesun. Compl. ¶ 13. Two of the shipments were from Thailand,

and the other two shipments were from Vietnam. Id. Veregy Central was not required

to make cash deposits or post bond for estimated AD/CVDs at the time of entry, nor did

Customs or Commerce ever direct Veregy Central to do so. Id.

On December 8, 2022, Commerce issued a preliminary determination that

imports of solar modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were

circumventing the AD/CVD orders on CSPV cells from China. See Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not

Assembled into Modules, from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative

Determinations of Circumvention with Respect to Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and

Vietnam (“Preliminary Circumvention Determination”), 87 Fed. Reg. 75,221 (Dep’t of

Commerce Dec. 8, 2022). The determination gave parties that imported such Court No. 25-00229 Page 4

merchandise between April 1, 2022, and December 8, 2022, 45 days from the

publication of the preliminary determination to provide the required certifications. 2 Id. at

75,225. Commerce suspended liquidation of the subject entries pursuant to the

Preliminary Circumvention Determination. See id.

On March 17, 2023, Commerce instructed Customs that subject merchandise

from Thailand and Vietnam entered during the period December 1, 2021, through

November 30, 2022, should be liquidated with respect to AD duties at the cash deposit

rate in effect on the date of entry. Compl. ¶ 17. The liquidation of Veregy Central’s

entries continued in suspension due to the ongoing CVD proceedings. Id.

On August 3, 2023, Commerce issued its final determination that imports of solar

modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were circumventing the

AD/CVD orders on CSPV cells from China. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into

Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Determination and Final

Affirmative Determinations of Circumvention with Respect to Cambodia, Malaysia,

Thailand, and Vietnam (“Final Circumvention Determination”), 88 Fed. Reg. 57,419

(Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 23, 2023).

2 “Applicable Entries” are defined in the Duty Suspension Rule as “entries of Southeast Asian-Completed Cells and Modules that are entered into the United States, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before the Date of Termination and, for entries that enter after November 15, 2022, are used in the United States by the Utilization Expiration Date.” 19 C.F.R. § 362.102 (2022). The “Utilization Expiration Date” is defined as “the date 180 days after the Date of Termination” on “June 6, 2024, or the date the emergency described in Presidential Proclamation 10414 has been terminated, whichever occurs first.” Id. Court No. 25-00229 Page 5

On February 8, 2024, Customs issued to Veregy Central a CF-29 Notice of

Action asserting a claim for AD/CVDs on imports of solar modules that were subject to

the AD/CVD orders on CSPV cells from China by virtue of the Final Circumvention

Determination. Compl. ¶ 19. On August 6, 2024, Customs liquidated the subject

entries. Id. ¶ 22.

In January 2025, plaintiff filed two protests “asserting that [Customs] had

unlawfully determined that Veregy’s entries were not ‘Applicable Entries’ excluded from

assessments of ADs [sic] and CVDs by virtue of Presidential Proclamation 10414 and

its implementing regulations.” Id. ¶ 23.

On April 22, 2025, Customs denied plaintiff’s protests. Id. ¶ 25. On August 19,

2025, Customs denied plaintiff’s application for further review. Id.

On August 22, 2025, this Court vacated the Duty Suspension Rule. Auxin Solar,

Inc. v. United States, 49 CIT __, __, 798 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1352 (2025).

On October 17, 2025, plaintiff filed its summons and complaint in the instant

action. Summons, ECF No. 8; Compl.

On October 21, 2025, the defendants in Auxin Solar appealed the judgment of

this Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). See

Defs.’ Notice of Appeal, Auxin Solar, Inc. et al. v. United States et al., No. 1:23-cv-

00274 (CIT 2025), ECF No. 130.

On February 13, 2026, defendants in this case moved for a stay pending the

appeal of Auxin Solar. See Mot. Stay. Court No. 25-00229 Page 6

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254 (1936). Accordingly, it is “within the sound discretion of the tribunal to grant or deny

a request to stay proceedings.” Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1079 (Fed. Cir.

2022).

DISCUSSION

I. Count I

The court concludes that Count I relies on the validity of the Duty Suspension

Rule and should be stayed pending appeal of the judgment in Auxin Solar.

Count I of the complaint argues expressly that the merchandise that plaintiff

entered “was excluded from assessments of [AD/CVDs] by virtue of Presidential

Proclamation 10414 and its implementing regulations.” Compl. ¶ 30. Indeed, it is likely

that any relief provided as to Count I would be rendered moot if the Federal Circuit were

to affirm the judgment in Auxin Solar. See id. ¶¶ 30-32.

Plaintiff does not address these arguments directly but argues instead that

defendants’ motion is procedurally improper. See Pl. Br. at 4-5. Plaintiff insists that any

“defense” to Count I should be stated “unequivocally in a responsive pleading in this

litigation.” Id. at 5.

Whether defendants’ mootness argument is a defense that was raised improperly

is irrelevant in light of “the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for Court No. 25-00229 Page 7

litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. The court declines to order that defendants file

responsive pleadings at this time. See AIMCOR Ala. Silicon, Inc. v. United States, 23

CIT 932, 939-940, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1300 (1999) (staying proceedings sua sponte

“[i]n light of the distinct possibility of mootness . . . and in the interest of judicial economy

and avoidance of possibly further unnecessary proceedings conducted at considerable

expense to the parties”).

Seeing as it is not the role of the court to “grant . . . contingent relief,” Axle of

Dearborn, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 49 CIT __, __, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1365-66

(2025), Count I is stayed pending a final decision on appeal in Auxin Solar.

II. Count II

The court concludes that Count II relies implicitly on the validity of the Duty

Suspension Rule and should be stayed pending appeal of the judgment in Auxin Solar.

Count II of the complaint concerns the alleged failure of Customs to follow the

instructions of Commerce to assess antidumping duties or countervailing duties at rates

equal to the cash deposit of estimated AD/CVDs required on subject merchandise at the

time of entry pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.212. See Compl. ¶¶ 8, 33-36.

Plaintiff contends that “[a]t the time it entered its merchandise, Veregy was not

required to post cash deposits or bonds for estimated antidumping or countervailing

duties.” Id. ¶ 36. But apart from the Duty Suspension Rule, plaintiff does not cite any

basis for the assertion that its entries should have been liquidated “without the

assessment of any antidumping or countervailing duties.” Id. (emphasis supplied).

In the absence of grounds to the contrary, the court reads the complaint as

alleging that the duties assessed on plaintiff’s entries were due to the Final Court No. 25-00229 Page 8

Circumvention Determination and would have been avoided only if the entries were

covered by the Duty Suspension Rule. See id. Indeed, plaintiff states that the basis of

its protests was that Customs “unlawfully determined that Veregy’s entries were not

‘Applicable Entries’ excluded from assessments of ADs [sic] and CVDs by virtue of

Presidential Proclamation 10414 and its implementing regulations.” Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis

supplied).

As a result, any determination that Customs should not have assessed any

AD/CVDs would require the court in turn to determine that plaintiff’s entries were

covered by the Duty Suspension Rule. Like with Count I, such a determination would

be likely rendered moot if the Federal Circuit were to affirm this Court’s judgment in

Auxin Solar. See supra Section I; see also Axle of Dearborn, 49 CIT at __, 791 F.

Supp. 3d at 1365-66.

For these reasons, the court grants defendants’ motion to stay as to Count II.

III. Count III

The court concludes that Count III relies implicitly on the validity of the Duty

Suspension Rule and should be stayed pending appeal of the judgment in Auxin Solar.

Count III of the complaint involves the same facts as Count II but concerns

instead the allegedly unlawful actions of Commerce in failing to “take corrective action”

after Customs “failed to follow Commerce’s instructions to liquidate Plaintiffs’ entries

with ADs [sic] and CVDs assessed at the applicable rates.” See Compl. ¶¶ 37-40. So,

for the same reasons, the court grants defendants’ motion to stay as to Count III. See

supra Section II. Court No. 25-00229 Page 9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay the instant action pending appeal of

the judgment in Auxin Solar is GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the instant action is STAYED pending a final resolution of Auxin

Solar, Inc. v. United States, 49 CIT __, 798 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (2025), appeal docketed,

2025-2120 (Fed. Cir.).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Timothy M. Reif Timothy M. Reif, Judge

Dated: April 8, 2026 New York, New York