Adee Honey Farms v. United States , 2020 CIT 184 ( 2020 )

SlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ184ȱ
ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ADEEȱHONEYȱFARMS,ȱetȱal.,ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffs,ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱChiefȱJudgeȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱv.ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱConsol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ16Ȭ00127ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱetȱal.,ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDefendants.ȱ
ȱ
OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
[Grantingȱinȱpartȱandȱdenyingȱinȱpartȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱ
administrativeȱrecordȱbyȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱmaterialsȱ
relevantȱtoȱaȱdecisionȱreachedȱuponȱtheȱ2001ȱpromulgationȱofȱanȱagencyȱregulation]ȱ
ȱ
Dated:ȱȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2020ȱ
CameronȱR.ȱArgetsinger,ȱPaulȱC.ȱRosenthal,ȱMichaelȱJ.ȱCoursey,ȱJohnȱM.ȱHerrmannȱII,ȱ
andȱJenniferȱE.ȱMcCadney,ȱKelleyȱDryeȱ&ȱWarrenȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱallȱ
plaintiffsȱexceptȱMontereyȱMushrooms,ȱInc.ȱ
ȱ
LouisȱS.ȱMastriani,ȱAdduci,ȱMastrianiȱ&ȱSchaumberg,ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ
forȱplaintiffsȱinȱconsolidatedȱcaseȱ16Ȭ00131,ȱA&SȱCrawfishȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates.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
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 2
(“CDSOA”),ȱcontestedȱaȱdecisionȱofȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱ(“Customs”ȱorȱ
“CBP”)ȱnotȱtoȱincludeȱ“delinquency”ȱinterest,ȱi.e.,ȱpostȬliquidationȱinterestȱpaidȱonȱ
antidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1505(b),ȱinȱtheȱ
distributionsȱthatȱplaintiffsȱreceivedȱfromȱCustomsȱunderȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱAȱpriorȱOpinionȱ
andȱOrderȱofȱthisȱCourt,ȱAdeeȱHoneyȱFarmsȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
1365ȱ(2020)ȱ(“AdeeȱHoneyȱI”),ȱdismissedȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱasȱuntimely,ȱ
allowingȱtoȱproceedȱonlyȱtheȱclaimsȱpertainingȱtoȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱ
withinȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱFollowingȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱAdeeȱ
HoneyȱI,ȱdefendantsȱsubmittedȱasȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱpursuantȱtoȱUSCITȱRuleȱ73.3ȱ
certainȱinformationȱfromȱCDP’sȱrevenueȱdepartmentȱpertainingȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱ
forȱwhichȱthisȱCourtȱheldȱplaintiffsȱtoȱhaveȱmadeȱtimelyȱclaims.ȱ
Plaintiffsȱmoveȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱfiledȱbyȱdefendantsȱandȱalsoȱ
moveȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreplyȱtoȱdefendants’ȱoppositionȱtoȱtheirȱmotion.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱ
discussedȱbelow,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱorderȱtheȱstrikingȱofȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱasȱ
previouslyȱfiledȱbutȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecord.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱgrantsȱ
plaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
BackgroundȱisȱsetȱforthȱinȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱwithȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱpresumesȱ
familiarity.ȱȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1367–70.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱmovedȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱ
administrativeȱrecordȱonȱSeptemberȱ15,ȱ2020,ȱfilingȱaȱrevisedȱmotionȱtheȱnextȱday.ȱȱMot.ȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 3
toȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ(Sept.ȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ94,ȱ95ȱ(“MotionȱtoȱStrike”ȱorȱ“Pls.’ȱ
Mot.”).ȱȱDefendantsȱopposedȱtheȱmotionȱonȱOctoberȱ16,ȱ2020.ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱtoȱPls.’ȱMotȱ
toȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱandȱMot.ȱforȱaȱStayȱofȱProceedingsȱ(Oct.ȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ99ȱ
(“Defs.’ȱResp.”).ȱȱPlaintiffsȱthenȱmovedȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreplyȱinȱsupportȱofȱtheirȱ
MotionȱtoȱStrike.ȱȱMot.ȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱReplyȱinȱSupp.ȱofȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱ
R.ȱ(Oct.ȱ21,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ100.ȱȱOnȱNovemberȱ12,ȱ2020,ȱdefendantsȱopposedȱtheȱ
grantingȱofȱleaveȱtoȱreply.ȱȱDefs.’ȱResp.ȱinȱOpp’nȱToȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱaȱReplyȱ
inȱSupp.ȱofȱtheirȱMot.ȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ(Nov.ȱ12,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ101ȱ(“Defs.’ȱ
Resp.ȱtoȱMot.ȱforȱLeave”).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
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 4
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
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
AdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1369.
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
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 5
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,ȱthatȱitȱcontainsȱ
documentsȱthatȱpostȬdateȱtheȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱcouldȱnotȱ
constituteȱtheȱrecordȱofȱwhatȱtheȱagencyȱconsideredȱwhenȱmakingȱtheȱ2001ȱ
promulgationȱdecision.ȱȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱ4–5.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconsidersȱtheseȱobjectionsȱtoȱbeȱ
variationsȱofȱaȱsingleȱargument,ȱwhichȱisȱthatȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱmustȱbeȱthatȱ
record,ȱandȱonlyȱthatȱrecord,ȱwhichȱpertainsȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustomsȱtoȱpromulgateȱ
theȱFinalȱRule.ȱ
B.ȱTheȱHoldingsȱofȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱ
ȱ
PlaintiffsȱclaimȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱthatȱCBP’sȱrefusalȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱ
interestȱwasȱunlawfulȱasȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱDefendants,ȱinȱmovingȱtoȱdismiss,ȱ
arguedȱthatȱallȱofȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimsȱwereȱuntimelyȱunderȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱstatuteȱofȱ
limitationsȱbecauseȱtheȱagencyȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱwasȱmadeȱ
inȱ2001ȱandȱplaintiffsȱdidȱnotȱassertȱanyȱclaimsȱuntilȱ2016.ȱȱRejectingȱthisȱargument,ȱAdeeȱ
HoneyȱIȱheld,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱpayȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱasȱmadeȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 6
uponȱtheȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱisȱtheȱdecisionȱbeingȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱ
litigationȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱplaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱ
wheneverȱtheyȱreceiveȱaȱCDSOAȱdistribution,ȱalthoughȱtheȱscopeȱofȱreliefȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱ
thoseȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱmadeȱwithinȱtwoȱyearsȱofȱtheȱcommencementȱofȱtheȱaction.ȱȱ
Seeȱ450ȱF.Supp.3dȱatȱ1376–78ȱ(plaintiffsȱmayȱraiseȱaȱsubstantiveȱchallengeȱtoȱaȱregulationȱ
eachȱtimeȱitȱisȱappliedȱtoȱthemȱandȱeachȱCDSOAȱdistributionȱconstitutesȱaȱseparateȱ
applicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigation).ȱ
Contraryȱtoȱdefendants’ȱpositionȱinȱopposingȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrike,ȱAdeeȱ
HoneyȱIȱdidȱnotȱlimitȱtheȱissueȱtoȱbeȱlitigatedȱtoȱwhetherȱtheȱregulationsȱwereȱproperlyȱ
appliedȱtoȱthoseȱdistributionsȱwithinȱtheȱtwoȬyearȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱContraȱDefs.’ȱ
Resp.ȱ3ȱ(“[T]heȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱtoȱtheȱdistributionsȱisȱtheȱonlyȱ
determinationȱavailableȱforȱplaintiffsȱtoȱchallenge.”).ȱȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱheld,ȱrather,ȱthatȱ
plaintiffsȱmayȱchallengeȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱtheȱFinalȱRuleȱasȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlawȱ
butȱalsoȱthatȱanyȱpotentialȱremedyȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱCDSOAȱdistributionsȱthatȱoccurredȱ
withinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱ
C.ȱTheȱNeedȱforȱaȱCompleteȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱ
ȱ
TheȱrecordȱasȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱconsistsȱofȱdocumentationȱrelatingȱtoȱthoseȱCDSOAȱ
distributionsȱmadeȱtoȱplaintiffsȱwithinȱtheȱlimitationsȱperiod.ȱȱToȱanswerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱ
theȱlegalityȱofȱCBP’sȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱtheȱcourtȱmustȱ
reviewȱ“theȱfullȱadministrativeȱrecord”ȱthatȱwasȱbeforeȱtheȱagencyȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 7
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.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱattachedȱtoȱtheirȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱaȱ2016ȱletterȱfromȱthenȬ
CommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱtoȱSenatorȱCharlesȱGrassley,ȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱEx.ȱ2,ȱwhich,ȱwhileȱ
addressingȱCBP’sȱinterpretationȱofȱSectionȱ605ȱofȱtheȱTradeȱFacilitationȱandȱTradeȱ
EnforcementȱActȱofȱ2015,ȱalsoȱindicatesȱthatȱCustomsȱpossessedȱdocumentsȱrelevantȱtoȱ
congressionalȱintentȱthatȱcouldȱconstituteȱlegislativeȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱCDSOA.ȱȱInȱtheȱ
letter,ȱCommissionerȱKerlikowskeȱrefersȱtoȱtechnologicalȱ“gaps”ȱpreventingȱtheȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 8
automatedȱdistributionȱbyȱCustomsȱofȱdelinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱCBP’sȱ
“internalȱanalysis,”ȱtheȱletterȱassertsȱthatȱ“Congressȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱawareȱofȱtheseȱ
gapsȱinȱtechnologicalȱcapabilitiesȱwhenȱtheȱCDSOAȱwasȱenacted.”ȱȱId.ȱȱCustomsȱmustȱ
nowȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourtȱwithȱallȱdocumentsȱandȱinformationȱ
relevantȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterestȱfromȱCDSOAȱ
distributions,ȱaȱdecisionȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule.ȱ
Plaintiffsȱrequestȱthatȱtheȱcurrentlyȱfiledȱrecordȱbeȱstruck,ȱnotȱthatȱitȱbeȱ
supplemented.ȱȱTheȱcurrentȱrecordȱbeforeȱtheȱcourt,ȱwhileȱnotȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱinitialȱ
agencyȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱdelinquencyȱinterest,ȱmayȱyetȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱissuesȱinȱthisȱ
litigation,ȱshouldȱplaintiffsȱultimatelyȱprevailȱandȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtoȱorderȱspecificȱmonetaryȱ
relief.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱseesȱnoȱprejudiceȱtoȱanyȱpartyȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheseȱ
documentsȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱorderingȱdefendantsȱtoȱ
supplementȱtheȱrecordȱbutȱwillȱnotȱorderȱtheȱstrikingȱofȱtheȱmaterialȱalreadyȱsubmitted.ȱ
D.ȱPlaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱFileȱaȱReplyȱ
ȱ
Defendantsȱoppose,ȱonȱvariousȱgrounds,ȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱȱDefs.’ȱ
Resp.ȱtoȱMot.ȱforȱLeave.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱnotesȱthatȱinȱtheirȱresponseȱtoȱplaintiffs’ȱmotion,ȱ
defendantsȱincorrectlyȱassertȱthatȱ“theȱdecisionȬmakingȱinȱdraftingȱandȱannouncingȱ
19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ159.64ȱand,ȱspecifically,ȱsectionȱ159.64(e)ȱ[provisionsȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule],ȱ
cannotȱbeȱtheȱ‘contestedȱdecision’ȱbecauseȱplaintiffsȱareȱtimeȬbarredȱfromȱchallengingȱ
it.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5ȱ(quotingȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI,ȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1375ȱ(“Plaintiffsȱhaveȱnoȱvalidȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 9
claimsȱotherȱthanȱthoseȱrelatingȱtoȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱregulationȱtoȱtheirȱindividualȱ
distributions.”)).ȱȱDefendantsȱmisstateȱtheȱholdingȱofȱAdeeȱHoneyȱI.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱareȱnotȱ
timeȬbarredȱfromȱchallengingȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱCBP’sȱregulation.ȱȱTheȱsentenceȱtheyȱ
quoteȱfromȱthisȱCourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱAdeeȱHoneyȱIȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱ
theȱstatuteȱofȱlimitationsȱ(specifically,ȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱatȱwhichȱtheȱclaimsȱaccrued),ȱnotȱtoȱ
theȱsubstantiveȱdecisionȱthatȱmayȱbeȱchallengedȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱDefendantsȱdisregardȱ
thatȱlaterȱinȱtheȱopinionȱandȱorderȱisȱtheȱstatementȱthatȱ“theseȱplaintiffsȱmayȱchallengeȱ
theȱsubstanceȱofȱCBP’sȱregulationsȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthemȱwithȱeachȱCDSOAȱdistributionȱtheyȱ
receivedȱwithinȱtwoȱyearsȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱcommencementȱofȱtheirȱrespectiveȱactionsȱonȱ
Julyȱ15,ȱ2016.”ȱȱAdeeȱ450ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1377ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱmisstatementȱinȱ
defendants’ȱresponse,ȱwithȱwhichȱplaintiffsȱrightfullyȱtakeȱissueȱinȱtheirȱproposedȱreplyȱ
brief,ȱisȱreasonȱenoughȱforȱtheȱcourt,ȱinȱitsȱdiscretion,ȱtoȱallowȱtheȱreplyȱbriefȱtoȱbeȱ
filed.III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
Forȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantsȱinȱpartȱandȱdeniesȱinȱpartȱ
plaintiffs’ȱmotionȱtoȱstrikeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecord.ȱȱDeferringȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱ
uponȱaȱpresumptionȱofȱregularityȱandȱaȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱpreviouslyȬfiledȱdocumentsȱ
potentiallyȱmayȱbeȱrelevantȱtoȱaȱremedy,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱstrikeȱthoseȱdocumentsȱ
butȱordersȱdefendantsȱtoȱsupplementȱthatȱrecordȱwithȱallȱmaterialsȱandȱinformationȱ
relevantȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱembodiedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ
delinquencyȱinterest.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱalsoȱgrantsȱplaintiffs’ȱmotionȱforȱleaveȱtoȱfileȱaȱreply.ȱȱ
Consol. Court No. 16-00127 Page 10
Therefore,ȱuponȱallȱreviewȱofȱallȱtheȱpapersȱherein,ȱandȱuponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱ
herebyȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱ(Septemberȱ16,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ95,ȱbe,ȱ
andȱherebyȱis,ȱgrantedȱinȱpartȱandȱdeniedȱinȱpart;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendants,ȱwithinȱsixtyȱ(60)ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱ
andȱOrder,ȱshallȱsupplementȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱwithȱtheȱmaterialsȱrelevantȱtoȱ
theȱdecisionȱbyȱCustoms,ȱlaterȱeffectuatedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱRule,ȱnotȱtoȱdistributeȱ
delinquencyȱinterest;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffs’ȱMotionȱforȱLeaveȱtoȱFileȱReplyȱ(Octoberȱ21,ȱ2020),ȱ
ECFȱNo.ȱ100,ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱgranted,ȱandȱplaintiffs’ȱproposedȱReplyȱinȱSupportȱofȱ
Plaintiffs’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrikeȱtheȱAdministrativeȱRecordȱisȱdeemedȱfiled;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