Hilex Poly Co. v. United States , 2020 CIT 186 ( 2020 )

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
Court No. 17-00090 Page 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