In Target Corp. v. United States, No. 2023-2274 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) dismissal of Target’s challenge to the reliquidation of antidumping entries, holding that the CIT improperly bypassed the statutory finality rules governing Customs’ liquidations. This decision reaffirms the holding in Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and constrains the CIT’s ability to use equitable powers to override liquidation finality established under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.
Background: Home Products I and Cemex
The case traces back to the CIT’s decision in Home Products Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (“Home Products I”), where Customs had mistakenly liquidated 224 entries—40 of which were imported by Target—at a 9.47% antidumping duty rate instead of the correct 72.29% rate ordered by the court. Customs failed to correct the error within the 90-day window provided under 19 U.S.C. § 1501, and instead sought a court order to reliquidate the entries in accordance with the court’s prior judgment.
Target, whose entries were among those erroneously liquidated, challenged the CIT’s order allowing reliquidation, arguing that finality principles under § 1514 and the Federal Circuit’s precedent in Cemex barred such relief. In Cemex, the Federal Circuit held that Customs’ mistaken recognition of deemed liquidation at an incorrect rate became final and conclusive under § 1514(a) absent a timely protest or statutory exception.
Federal Circuit Holding
Judge Chen, writing for the majority, held that Cemex squarely governed and mandated reversal. The court rejected the CIT’s attempt to distinguish Cemex as a purely equitable decision and reaffirmed that once entries are liquidated and no statutory protest or exception is timely invoked, such decisions are “final and conclusive upon all persons” under § 1514(a)(5).
Key points from the Federal Circuit’s reasoning include:
- Finality Trumps Error: Even an “admittedly erroneous decision to liquidate falls within the ambit of section 1514(a)(5), which shields such decisions from challenge, without regard for their legality.” (Cemex, 384 F.3d at 1324).
- Limited Equitable Reach: The CIT’s reliance on inherent judicial power to enforce its judgments cannot override the express statutory scheme Congress enacted. The court emphasized that “[t]he exercise of the inherent power of lower federal courts can be limited by statute and rule.” (Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 47 (1991)).
- Agro Dutch Distinguished: The court rejected the government’s reliance on Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2009), clarifying that Agro Dutch addressed premature liquidation in violation of a preliminary injunction—distinct from post-judgment liquidations governed by § 1514 finality rules.
- Jurisdiction and Timing Matter: The government’s failure to seek reliquidation within the statutory 90-day window under § 1501, or to file a timely protest under § 1514(a), foreclosed the possibility of correcting the error outside of those prescribed routes.
Dissenting View
Judge Reyna dissented, arguing that Cemex did not preclude equitable relief in this case and that the CIT acted within its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2643(c)(1) to enforce its judgments via affirmative injunction. He emphasized that the CIT’s jurisdiction under § 1516a provided an exception to the § 1514(a) finality bar, and that the equities, including Target’s silent acceptance of a windfall, weighed in favor of upholding the CIT’s order.
Takeaway
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Target Corp. v. United States sends a clear message: statutory finality under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 is not subject to equitable override, even in the face of a clear liquidation error. The court reiterated the importance of following the statutory protest mechanisms and strict timelines provided in Customs law, placing the burden squarely on interested parties—and not the courts—to ensure timely correction of mistakes.
This case underscores the need for importers and government counsel alike to monitor liquidation status diligently and act promptly through the statutorily designated channels. While the CIT may have equitable instincts to remedy Customs’ errors, its hands are tied when Congress has spoken clearly on finality.