CIT Erred When Dismissing Case Concerning Unconstitutional "Excessive Fines," Importer Tells CAFC

The Court of International Trade erred when it dismissed a case brought by importer Rimco over alleged "excessive fines" leveled by CBP for the combination of antidumping and countervailing duty rates on steel wheels from China, Rimco argued in a Nov. 14 brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The importer made various entries subject to the AD and CVD Orders in 2019 which CBP hit Rimco's entries with combined countervailing and antidumping duty rates as high as 688%. Rimco protested these charges as unconstitutional “excessive fines," but CBP denied the importer's protest in March 2021. Rimco then filed suit at CIT, citing the court's authority over protest denials. However, the Government moved to dismiss Rimco’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see2206090021), which CIT granted in July, ruling that CBP’s liquidation of the entries at issue was not a protestable decision and that Rimco was required to raise its constitutional claims before Commerce in administrative or annual review proceedings (see 2207110019).

Rimco then appealed the dismissal to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the administrative pathway outlined by CIT is unworkable because the Commerce Department lacks institutional competence to decide the constitutionality of its own determinations and unconstitutional assessments made by CBP may be challenged without administrative proceedings. Whether an exaction made by CBP violates the constitutional ban on “Excessive Fines” is a matter for the courts, Rimco said.

The importer has asked CAFC to vacate the lower court's dismissal and remand the case back to CIT with directions for that court to entertain the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) protest jurisdiction.