CIT Finds Jurisdiction to Hear Claims on AD Investigation Under Suspension Agreement
Plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente have jurisdiction to challenge the Commerce Department's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation following the termination of a suspension agreement, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that no challenges to restarting investigations are valid unless part of a challenge to a final determination (see 2204140067), and Bioparques' case challenges a final determination, the court has jurisdiction to hear these claims.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Choe-Groves also upheld the court's jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to hear eight other claims in the proceeding since they challenge the final determination in an AD investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, even though the investigation is subject to a suspension agreement. She found jurisdiction also existed for another claim under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.
However, the judge affirmed the Federal Circuit's dismissal of one count in the case. The claim concerned Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and claimed jurisdiction under Section 1581(i). While Choe-Groves said the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the appellate court already dismissed the challenge on substantive grounds.
The AD investigation was launched in 1996 and was subject to four different suspension agreements through 2013. In 2019, the agency withdrew from the 2013 suspension agreement, though a later agreement was reached. At that time, Commerce issued its final determination in the investigation, finding that the tomatoes were being dumped into the U.S. market. The plaintiffs launched three separate CIT cases, which were consolidated into one action under Bioparques.
(Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Slip Op. 23-67, CIT Consol. #19-00204, dated 05/01/23; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Jeffrey Winton of Winton & Chapman for plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente; Bernd Janzen of Akin Gump for consolidated plaintiffs led by Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa; Douglas Edelschick for defendant U.S. government; Robert Cassidy Jr. of Cassidy Levy for defendant-intervenor The Florida Tomato Exchange)