Canadian Exporter Asks CIT to Reverse Dismissal After 'Calendaring Mistake'
A Canadian steel products exporter asked the Court of International Trade to reverse a Jan. 31 dismissal of six of its cases for failure to prosecute, saying its lawyers had accidentally overlooked the deadline while negotiating with the government out of court (Arcelormittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00037, -00038, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042).
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.
ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada, a Canadian exporter of steel products, filed six summons with CIT in January 2021 arguing that many of its entries should have been excluded from Section 232 tariffs. The court granted it a year’s extension in 2023 to submit all its complaints.
In motions it submitted to reverse the dismissals, ArcelorMittal said it sent a proposal to the U.S. after filing its initial summons “to stipulate as to the eligibility of the subject products” in one of its cases for being excluded from Section 232 duties. After negotiation, it said it sent the government the last iteration of a proposed order to be filed jointly with the court for that case.
Counsel overlooked the Jan. 31 deadline “by virtue of a calendaring mistake,” it said.
It said that Rule 60(B) of the Rules of Civil Procedure supports its argument that CIT should grant its motion to reverse dismissal, as ArcelorMittal met “all four factors” of excusable neglect: there was no concern of prejudice to the opposing party; the length of the delay was minimal; the reason for the delay was a simple mistake and inadvertence, not “within the reasonable control of the movant”; and ArcelorMittal was acting in good faith.
In support, ArcelorMittal cited a DOJ lawyer on the case, who said “the Government defers to the discretion of the Court as to whether relief should be granted, but notes that the Government will not be prejudiced by the Court returning the case to the Customs Case Management Calendar.”
It requested a new deadline set for January 2025 for more time “to effectuate a potential resolution in Case No. 21-00038 and, in turn, determine whether it will be possible to resolve the remaining AMLP Cases without further involvement of the Court.”
“Counsel for AMLP regrets this mistake and intends to take additional steps to ensure that all future deadlines established by the Court in the AMLP Cases are timely met,” it said.