UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-57

In Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, No. 20-03941, Slip. Op. 25-57 (May 8, 2025), the Court addressed whether the defendants United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) may reliquidate negligently liquidated entries. This case arises from the following facts. On October 16, 2020, Presidential Proclamation 10101 reinstated safeguard duties of particular products. On December 7, 2021, the Court issued an order suspending defendants’ liquidation of entries of plaintiffs’ solar panels to ensure defendants’ compliance with Proclamation 10101.  Contrary to the 2021 suspension order, from the period of August 5, 2022 to October 25, 2024, the defendants negligently liquidated entries of the plaintiffs’ imported solar panels that should have been subject to safeguard duties at higher rates. The defendants admitted to the noncompliant liquidations but noted they were “inadvertent” and subsequently requested judgment from the Court to permit remedial reliquidation of the entries.

The plaintiffs opposed the defendants’ request to reliquidate. The Court held that (1) the defendants may not voluntarily reliquidate negligently liquidated entries; and (2) the circumstances of the case do not warrant a court-issued reliquidation order. Despite the rule that “[a]n entry that has been liquidated generally cannot be reliquidated, even upon a later judicial determination that the liquidated rate was inaccurate or inconsistent with law,” CBP argued that it was permitted to take “administrative steps” to remedy improper liquidations. The Court took issue with CBP’s argument, citing Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 1187, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which held that the decision to remedy violations of an injunction and the discretion of related  methods belongs “to the court alone.” Further, the Court cited the 90-day period of statutory limitation on “voluntary” reliquidation as stated in 19 U.S.C. § 1501. Beyond this 90-day period,  defendants must demonstrate entitlement to equitable relief subject to the court’s discretion. The Court held that the defendants did not adequately demonstrate this entitlement. Accordingly, the Court declined to issue equitable relief to the defendants.

The Court explained that (1) the defendants “caused the very harm from which they seek equitable relief” and (2) the defendants failed to demonstrate “diligent efforts to comply with the Suspension Order.” In response to the Court’s statement that the 90-day period to voluntarily remedy had passed, the defendants cited their 2022 Notice of non-compliance. However, the Court stated that “while notice of non-compliance with a court order is laudable, it is no substitute for compliance,” and concluded that CBP must bear the burden of “strict compliance with all statutory and judicially-imposed requirements related to liquidation.” In Solar Energy v. United States, the Court emphasized that “the purpose of an injunction against liquidation is to prevent liquidation,” reasoning that the incentive to follow an injunction would “evaporate” should the Court permit the Government to rely on a court to “cure its violations.”