28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION: 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW OF DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION: 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW OF DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE"

Transcription

1 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION: 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW OF DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE U.S. COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DONALD B. CAMERON AND BRADY W. MILLS* I. INTRODUCTION Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) constituted a significant part of the U.S. Court of International Trade s ( CIT ) docket in 2007 and resulted in some very interesting and important decisions. These cases ran the gamut from challenges to the U.S. Department of Commerce s ( Commerce ) liquidation instructions in antidumping ( AD ) and countervailing duty ( CVD ) proceedings, to cases dealing with the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 1 ( CDSOA or Byrd Amendment ) and Commerce s controversial practice of zeroingout negative AD margins. In addition, several cases addressed the lawfulness of Commerce s Reseller Policy, which sets the assessment rate at which imports purchased from a foreign reseller of merchandise subject to an AD order will be liquidated. Most significantly, the court elaborated on the scope of 1581(i) jurisdiction in cases where jurisdiction could potentially be available under another subsection of All in all, 2007 was an active year for the court s 1581(i) docket. II. THE SCOPE OF THE CIT S JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) The subject matter jurisdiction of the CIT is set forth in 28 U.S.C Subsections (a) through (h) grant jurisdiction to the CIT over specific civil actions, including the denial of a protest by United States Customs & Border Protection ( Customs ) and certain administrative determinations made by Commerce, the United States Department of Labor, the United States International Trade Commission ( ITC ), and the United States Department of the Treasury. 2 Section 1581(i), on the other hand, provides a broader and more general grant of jurisdiction. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) provides: * Donald B. Cameron is a partner at Troutman Sanders LLP, concentrating his practice on international trade law. Brady W. Mills is a counsel at Troutman Sanders LLP, also concentrating his practice on international trade law. 2008, Donald B. Cameron and Brady W. Mills U.S.C. 1675c (2006), Pub. L. No , tit. X, 1002, 114 Stat (2000) (repealed by Pub. L. No , tit. VII subtit. F 7601(a), 120 Stat. 154 (2006)) U.S.C. 1581(a) (h) (2000). 123

2 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of International Trade by subsections (a)-(h) of this section and subject to the exception set forth in subsection (j) of this section, the Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States providing for (1) revenue from imports or tonnage; (2) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue; (3) embargoes or other quantitative restrictions on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the protection of the public health or safety; or (4) administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) (3) of this subsection and subsections (a) (h) of this section. 3 Because jurisdiction under 1581(i) is not narrowly limited to any particular type of case or review of any particular administrative agency, courts routinely refer to 1581(i) as a residual jurisdiction provision. 4 Although, on its face, 1581(i)(4) appears to provide very broad jurisdiction over any case that involves the administration and enforcement of matters enumerated in subsections (a) (h) and (i)(1) (3), courts have clarified that the breadth of 1581(i) is limited. For example, in Miller & Company v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ( Federal Circuit ) clarified that while 1581(i)(4) is a broad residual jurisdictional provision, this jurisdictional provision may not be invoked when jurisdiction under another subsection of 1581 is or could have been available, unless the remedy provided under that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate. 5 This prudential limitation on the availability of 1581(i) jurisdiction has been applied so that the residual provision does not completely gut the requirements of other provisions in In 2007, Chief Judge Jane Restani significantly clarified the outer boundaries of 1581(i) jurisdiction with her decision in Parkdale U.S.C. 1581(i). 4. See, e.g., Int l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) F.2d 961, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Int l Custom Prods., 467 F.3d at Parkdale Int l Ltd. v. United States (Parkdale I), 491 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007) (citing United States v. UniRoyal, Inc., 687 F.2d 467, 475 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J., concurring)). 124 [Vol. 40

3 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION International Limited v. United States (Parkdale I). 7 In that case, the court rejected the widely-held interpretation that 1581(i) is only available if jurisdiction under the other sub-sections of 1581 is a virtual impossibility. 8 Instead, the court held that, where the core of a dispute is within 1581(i), in that it relates to a general issue of administration and enforcement policy regarding matters listed in 1581(i)(1) (3), jurisdiction under 1581(i) is available unless it is clear that one of the other specific jurisdictional provisions of 1581 applies. 9 The plaintiffs in Parkdale I had filed a complaint under 1581(i) and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the liquidation of certain entries of goods that were subject to AD duties. 10 Plaintiffs were importers and resellers of steel products from Canada who had paid AD cash deposits on their entries but did not participate in an annual administrative review of those entries. 11 Plaintiffs sought liquidation or reliquidation of these entries at the cash deposit rate of the producer of the merchandise under a Commerce regulation providing for automatic liquidation of entries that are not subject to an administrative review. 12 Plaintiffs asserted that the automatic liquidation rule should apply to its entries despite Commerce s then-new Reseller Policy, which provides that an administrative review of entries for any entity in the same chain of sale will result in a combined all others rate for any unreviewed reseller. 13 Commerce moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that plaintiffs could have brought their case as a 1581(c) challenge to Commerce s final results, because its determination to apply the Reseller Policy to plaintiffs entries was mentioned in the Federal Register notice announcing the final results. 14 The government argued that, because jurisdiction under 1581(c) could have been invoked, and was not a manifestly inadequate means to obtain relief, plaintiffs [could not] now invoke residual jurisdiction under 7. Parkdale I, 491 F. Supp. 2d at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. at The all others rate is statutorily defined as an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 [i.e., margins based on facts available]. Tariff Act of (c)(5)(A), 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c)(5)(A) (2000). 14. Parkdale I, 491 F. Supp. 2d at ] 125

4 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1581(i). 15 The plaintiffs responded that the application of the Reseller Policy was a decision separate from the administrative review and that the inclusion of boilerplate language in the final results notice did not change the fact that application of the Reseller Policy is a decision that relates to the liquidation instructions, which can only be challenged under 1581(i). 16 The court first noted that the plaintiffs could not have brought suit under 1581(c) because they did not participate in the administrative review proceedings. 17 The court thus framed the jurisdictional issue as whether plaintiffs were required to bring a challenge to the generally applicable Reseller Policy in such proceedings, even though they could not have participated as parties with entries to be reviewed without mooting their case. 18 Put another way, the court framed the issue as being whether the plaintiffs were required to try to fit their case within the 1581(c) jurisdictional box in order to preserve jurisdiction. The court rejected the government s interpretation that 1581(i) is only available if jurisdiction under the other sections is a virtual impossibility. The court cited to two Federal Circuit decisions U.S. Shoe Corporation v. United States 19 and Swisher International, Incorporated v. United States 20 that the court found demonstrated that two avenues of 1581 jurisdiction may exist simultaneously, at least in theory. 21 Both these cases involved challenges to the harbor maintenance tax ( HMT ). In U.S. Shoe Corp., the Federal Circuit held that HMT payments were not protestable decisions and thus 1581(i) jurisdiction applied. 22 But in Swisher Int l Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the protest of an HMT refund request denial was possible and that 1581(a) jurisdiction was thus available. 23 The court used this apparent anomaly in the Federal 15. Id. 16. Id. 17. As the CIT noted in its decision, the parties agreed that plaintiffs could have filed a case brief with Commerce challenging the Reseller Policy even without participating in the administrative review of their entries. The court noted, however, that notwithstanding this fact [t]he issue is whether under these conditions they must file such a brief to preserve jurisdiction. Id. at 1267 n Id. The CIT does not elaborate on why the case would have been moot if the plaintiffs had participated in the administrative review. However, it appears that mootness would have resulted because if plaintiffs participated in the administrative review they would not have been subject to the Reseller Policy since they would have been assigned their own reseller specific rate F.3d 1564, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997), aff d, 523 U.S. 360 (1998) F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 21. Parkdale I, 491 F. Supp. 2d at See U.S. Shoe Corp., 114 F.3d at Swisher Int l, 205 F.3d at [Vol. 40

5 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION Circuit precedent whereby a party could assert (i) jurisdiction when (a) jurisdiction could have been exercised as an opportunity to establish a more expansive interpretation of the scope of 1581(i) jurisdiction. The court held that: [W]here the core of a dispute is within 1581(i), i.e., it relates to a general issue of administration and enforcement policy as to matters listed in 1581(i)(1) (3), 1581(i) should function according to its terms, unless it is clear that another provision of 1581 applies. See H.R. Rep. No , at 48 (1980) as reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3729, 3760 ( Subsection (i), and in particular paragraph (4), makes it clear that the court is not prohibited from entertaining a civil action relating to an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding so long as the action does not involve a challenge to a determination specified in section 516A of the Tariff Act of ). 24 The court found that jurisdiction under 1581(c) was not clearly available because Commerce s determination to apply the Reseller Policy was not a determination under 19 U.S.C. 1675(a). 25 Specifically, the administrative reviews covered under 1675(a), which can be appealed under 1581(c), cover entries subject to the review. 26 Because none of the plaintiffs entries were subject to the administrative review in question, the mere inclusion of boilerplate language regarding the application of the Reseller Policy did not make application of that policy a determination under section 516A of the Tariff Act of The court concluded, [t]his action involves a generally applicable administrative policy, unreviewed entries, and liquidation instructions not dependent on the results of the review. Jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C 1581(i). 28 The Parkdale I decision potentially changes the landscape for analyzing whether jurisdiction is available under 1581(i). This new analytical framework was succinctly summarized by the court: 24. Parkdale I, 491 F. Supp. 2d at Id. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Id. at ] 127

6 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Congress did not intend for parties to guess if their action fits into a 1581 pigeonhole. Those claims that involve clearly protestable matters, or are at the core of an antidumping or countervailing duty determination, must proceed under 1581(a) or (c) respectively. Other matters not clearly provided for in 1581(a) (h) were intended to fall into 1581(i) so that no one would be denied an avenue of relief in this general subject matter area. 29 Although Parkdale I was dealing with the jurisdictional issue in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction, this jurisdictional framework was subsequently applied again by Chief Judge Restani in the later decision on the merits in Parkdale II 30 as well as in another case challenging Commerce s Reseller Policy. 31 In both of these cases, Chief Judge Restani found that jurisdiction under 1581(i) existed. Although it is too early to determine whether Parkdale I will be widely followed, 32 there can be no doubt that this decision clarifies the scope of the court s subject matter jurisdiction under 1581(i). A. Other Important Cases Where 1581(i) Jurisdiction Found to Exist In addition to the Parkdale I decision, the court analyzed the availability of jurisdiction under 1581(i) in a number of other cases and found it to exist. Two significant decisions involved challenges to Commerce determinations as to the effective date of the revocation of AD/CVD orders. The issue presented in these cases was whether a notice of revocation of an AD/CVD order published in the Federal Register constituted a reviewable determination within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1516a, so that a party challenging the notice had an adequate remedy available under 1581(c), rendering jurisdiction under 1581(i) unavailable. A third significant case found 1581(i) jurisdiction over a challenge to liquidation instructions that correctly reflected the final results of the administrative review, but were arguably inconsistent with a recent change in the AD law. 29. Id. 30. Parkdale Int l, Ltd. v. United States (Parkdale II), 508 F. Supp. 2d 1338, (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). 31. Impact Steel Canada Corp. v. United States, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1298, (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). 32. Judge Pogue appears to cite to the Parkdale I decision with approval in Hartford Ins. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1335 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007) but ultimately found that jurisdiction was not available under 1581(i), id. at [Vol. 40

7 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION In Canadian Wheat Board v. United States, the court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction under 1581(i) to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction in which the plaintiff sought to enjoin Commerce and Customs from liquidating all entries of Canadian hard red spring wheat ( wheat ) that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to January 2, The case turned on the issue of whether Commerce s notice revoking the AD/CVD orders on Canadian wheat constituted a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), in which case jurisdiction would have been available under 1581(c). Following a determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is not materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of Canadian wheat, Commerce implemented that determination by publishing a notice of revocation of the AD/CVD orders on Canadian wheat in the Federal Register ( Revocation Notice ). 34 Commerce announced in its Revocation Notice that it would instruct Customs to liquidate, without duties, only those imports that entered the United States on or after January 2, Plaintiff s complaint alleged that Commerce committed legal error by not making the Revocation Notice applicable to all unliquidated entries subject to the now revoked AD/CVD orders, i.e., not just those entries on or after January 2, The government argued that the court lacked 1581(i) jurisdiction because jurisdiction was available under 1581(c). 37 In reviewing the jurisdictional question, the court first examined whether the Revocation Notice was a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides for judicial review of: Final affirmative determinations by the administering authority and by the Commission under section 1671d [final CVD determinations] or 1673d [final AD determinations] of this title, including any negative part of such a determination (other than a part referred to in clause (ii)). 38 If the Revocation Notice constituted a reviewable determination under this provision, then jurisdiction was available to plaintiff under 1581(c). 33. Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1234, 1237 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). 34. Id. at (citation omitted). 35. Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at 1240 n ] 129

8 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW If it did not, then jurisdiction was potentially available to plaintiff under 1581(i). Although acknowledging that the Revocation Notice contained a legal conclusion resulting from Commerce s application of the unfair trade laws, plaintiff argued that it was not a reviewable determination, but rather simply an implementation of the ITC s negative injury determination. 39 For its part, Commerce argued that in issuing the Revocation Notice it reapplied the antidumping duty statutes with respect to the issuance of antidumping duty orders and concluded that the orders should be revoked only prospectively. 40 As such, the Revocation Notice amended its AD/CVD determinations and was thus a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i). 41 The court disagreed with Commerce s characterization of the Revocation Notice. The court found that Commerce s legal conclusion that the revocation of the AD/CVD orders would only apply prospectively was reached without the hallmarks of a final determination. The determination was reached without notice, public hearings or briefing by the parties and was outside of the reviewable determinations found in 19 U.S.C. 1516a. 42 The court also rejected the government s argument that, since the Revocation Notice revoked the AD/CVD orders for all entries made on or after January 2, 2006, and reaffirmed the orders application to all other entries, it constituted a reviewable determination, i.e., it was a negative determination for entries on or after January 2, 2006 and an affirmative determination for entries before that date. 43 The court held that, because the determination that the revocation would only apply prospectively was not contained in either the ITC s negative determination or Commerce s final determination, this finding was not a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a. 44 The court thus found that jurisdiction under 1581(i) was available. 45 In a second, similar case, Parkdale International Limited. v. United States (Parkdale II), the court held that it had jurisdiction under 1581(i) over an action challenging the effective date of the revocation of an AD order following a negative determination by the ITC in a second sunset 39. Id. at Id. at Id. 42. Id. at Id. 44. Id. 45. Id. at [Vol. 40

9 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION review proceeding. 46 In its notice of revocation, Commerce stated that the effective date of revocation was the fifth anniversary of the date of publication of the notice of continuation of the AD order following the first sunset review. 47 Plaintiff, an importer of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ( CORE ) from Canada, moved for a preliminary injunction arguing that the revocation should have been effective as of the fifth anniversary of the amended AD order. 48 As part of its analysis of the motion for preliminary injunction, the court first considered the threshold issue of whether it had jurisdiction over the case. 49 Plaintiff argued that jurisdiction lay under 1581(i)(4) because its challenge was to the implementation date of Commerce s revocation of the Canadian CORE AD order pursuant to the ITC s negative determination. 50 Plaintiff characterized Commerce s notice of revocation as a ministerial act that did not constitute a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a. 51 As such, 1581(c) jurisdiction was not available or was manifestly inadequate. 52 Relying on the reasoning in Canadian Wheat, plaintiff argued that jurisdiction was available under 1581(i)(4). 53 The government argued that Commerce s decision to revoke the AD order was a final determination reviewable under 1581(c). 54 This argument was premised on the revocation, which included a statement that Commerce was revoking the order pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(d)(2), which is a reviewable determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). 55 Because jurisdiction over this 19 U.S.C. 1675(d)(2) determination was available under 1581(c), the government argued, jurisdiction was not available to plaintiff under 1581(i). 56 Although recognizing that Canadian Wheat was slightly different in that it involved a revocation following a North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) panel determination, the court found that this 46. Parkdale Int l Ltd. v. United States, Ct. No , 2007 Ct. Int l Trade LEXIS 160, at *10 (Ct. Int l Trade Oct. 31, 2007). 47. Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. 51. Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. 55. Id. at * Id. at * ] 131

10 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW distinction did not compel a different result in this case. 57 Here, as in Canadian Wheat, Commerce s conclusion regarding the effective date of revocation was not part of the ITC s final negative determination, but was rather a conclusion made by Commerce after the ITC s final determination was issued. 58 As in Canadian Wheat, Commerce s legal conclusion regarding the effective date of revocation was reached without notice, public hearings or briefing by the parties and was [therefore] outside of the reviewable determinations found in 19 U.S.C. 1516a. 59 The court thus concluded that jurisdiction under 1581(c) was not available to plaintiff to challenge the notice of revocation. 60 Guided by Canadian Wheat, the court found that jurisdiction was appropriate under 1581(i)(4), which provides for jurisdiction over cases involving the administration and enforcement with respect to matters referred to in paragraphs (1) (3) of this subsection and subsections (a) (h) of this section. 61 The court found that plaintiff s challenge to the notice of revocation was a challenge to the administration and enforcement of the ITC s negative determination. 62 Specifically, it was a challenge to the effective date of revocation of the order and not a challenge to the ITC s negative determination. 63 The court thus concluded that plaintiff s challenge to Commerce s conclusion regarding the effective date of revocation of the order was reviewable under 1581(i)(4). 64 In the third significant case, Corus Staal BV v. United States (Corus III), the court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a preliminary injunction motion that sought to enjoin the government from liquidating Corus first administrative review entries of hot-rolled steel following the conclusion of litigation over Commerce s first review final results. 65 The liquidation of these entries had been enjoined by a 57. Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * One distinction between this case and Canadian Wheat was that the court in Canadian Wheat addressed the meaning of final determination in the context of 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), whereas the court in Parkdale International Limited was reviewing the meaning of final determination under 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). The court did not find this distinction important. 60. Id. at * Id. 62. Id. at * See id. 64. See id. at * Corus Staal BV v. United States (Corus III), 515 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). 132 [Vol. 40

11 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION preliminary injunction that was entered during Corus 1581(c) appeal of the first review final results. 66 The injunction suspending liquidation was lifted on July 6, 2007, following the completion of judicial review. 67 While Corus appeal of the first review final results was pending in the U.S. courts, the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) issued a ruling that Commerce s practice of zeroing in AD investigations violated U.S. obligations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement. 68 The United States implemented the adverse WTO decision by following the administrative procedures contained in sections 123 and 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ( URAA ). 69 In the 123 proceeding, 70 Commerce eliminated the practice of zeroing in all current and future AD investigations as of February 22, In the section 129 proceeding, 72 Commerce recalculated the dumping margins in each covered investigation, including the hot-rolled steel investigation covering Corus entries, without zeroing. 73 This recalculation led to a zero dumping margin in Corus case, and Commerce thus revoked the AD order. 74 The section 129 determination came into effect on April 23, Corus argued that jurisdiction was appropriate under 1581(i) because its lawsuit was filed after the section 129 determination led to the revocation of the AD order. 76 Because there was no longer a valid AD order covering its entries, Corus contended that Commerce lost 66. Id. 67. See id. at Id. 69. Id. at Uruguay Round Agreements Act 123, 19 U.S.C (2000), provides a mechanism to amend, rescind, or modify an agency regulation or practice in order to implement a decision by the WTO if such regulation or practice is inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations. Section 123 requires the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consult with appropriate Congressional committees, private sector committees, and provide for public comment before determining whether and how to change an agency regulation or practice. Id. 3533(g)(1)(A) (D) (2000). 71. Corus III, 515 F. Supp. 2d at Uruguay Round Agreements Act 129, 19 U.S.C (2000), provides procedures for implementing a negative WTO decision into domestic law. It is a discrete procedure that implements a negative WTO decision with respect to a specific administrative determination that was subject to the WTO dispute. Id. A section 129 determination is prospective in nature and applies only to unliquidated entries that are entered or withdrawn on or after the date the USTR directs Commerce to implement that determination. Id. 3538(c)(1)(B). 73. Corus III, 515 F. Supp. 2d at Id. 75. Id. 76. See id. at ] 133

12 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW authority to impose AD duties on its entries of hot-rolled steel. 77 Corus claimed that Commerce s liquidation instructions were thus unlawful and subject to review under the administration and enforcement subsection of 1581(i). 78 The government countered that jurisdiction under 1581(i)(4) was not available because a challenge to liquidation instructions must contend that the liquidation instructions themselves do not accurately reflect the results of the underlying proceeding. 79 The government argued that, because Corus admits that Commerce s liquidation instructions accurately reflect the final results of the first review, jurisdiction cannot lie under 1581(i)(4). 80 The court disagreed with the government s reading of the scope of jurisdiction under 1581(i)(4), holding that there is no rule precluding review of liquidation instructions that are consistent with the underlying proceeding, but nonetheless illegal because of an intervening change in the legal landscape. 81 The court went on to say: In this case, Corus has initiated a fundamental challenge to Commerce s legal authority to impose antidumping duties following a change in U.S. trade law that extinguished the very basis for imposing those duties. Accordingly, there is a distinct basis for jurisdiction here apart from that recognized in the line of cases that rely on an inconsistency in the underlying determination and the resulting liquidation or instructions to confer jurisdiction under 1581(i)(4). 82 Thus, this was a new cause of action that arose under 1581(i) following revocation of the AD Order based upon arguably conflicting authority The court held that jurisdiction was available under 1581(i) because the case considered whether Commerce had the authority to enforce the final results of the first administrative review 77. Id. 78. Id. 79. Id. 80. Id. 81. Id. at Id. The court also found that jurisdiction was available under 1581(i)(2). Because Corus was questioning the foundation of Commerce s authority to impose AD duties, this represents a challenge to tariffs, duties, fees, or taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue. Id. 83. Id. 134 [Vol. 40

13 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION by issuing liquidation instructions after the underlying order had been revoked. 84 B. Cases Where 1581(i) Jurisdiction Has Been Found Not to Exist In addition to these and other cases where the court found that 1581(i) jurisdiction existed, there were also several significant cases where the court found 1581(i) jurisdiction lacking, holding that jurisdiction was available under another section of 1581 and that these other bases for jurisdiction were not manifestly inadequate. Three such decisions will be discussed in this section. These cases illustrate the pitfalls that await a practitioner seeking to bring a case under the court s residual jurisdiction. In the first case, Government of the People s Republic of China v. United States, the court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed a case seeking to enjoin Commerce from conducting a CVD investigation on paper products from China. 85 The court found that it lacked jurisdiction under 1581(i) because jurisdiction would be available to the plaintiff under 1581(c) at the conclusion of the investigation, and this avenue of jurisdiction was not manifestly inadequate. 86 This case was significant not only in terms of teaching the boundaries of 1581(i) jurisdiction, but also because it involved a challenge to the first case in over twenty years in which Commerce had initiated a CVD investigation on products from a non-market economy ( NME ) country. 87 Plaintiff argued that the court had jurisdiction under 1581(i) to hear the allegation that Commerce s CVD investigation was ultra vires, and that the only other potential jurisdictional avenue available, 1581(c), was manifestly inadequate. 88 Specifically, because the remedy sought by Plaintiff was to be freed from the obligation of participating in the CVD investigation, waiting for the issuance of a final determination following the completion of the CVD investigation was a manifestly inadequate remedy, i.e., the CVD investigation that they sought to prevent would be over. 89 Commerce argued that plaintiff could not bring suit under 1581(i) 84. See id. 85. Gov t of the People s Republic of China v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1275 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). 86. Id. 87. Id. at Id. at See id. 2008] 135

14 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW because jurisdiction would be available under 1581(c) after Commerce issued its final determination. 90 In addition, the government argued that jurisdiction under 1581(i) was not appropriate because the jurisdictional issue and the merits were inextricably intertwined, and the former could not be decided without deciding the latter. 91 That is, in order for the court to determine whether the CVD investigation was ultra vires, it would have to determine whether the CVD law could be applied to an NME. 92 Finally, the government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction on ripeness grounds because there had been no final agency action for review the decision to initiate a CVD investigation was a threshold determination rather than a final agency action. 93 While acknowledging that 1581(i) is a broad residual jurisdiction provision, the court felt constrained by the statutory limitation that 1581(i) jurisdiction is not available if the AD/CVD determination is reviewable under 19 U.S.C. 1516a. 94 The court thus agreed with the government that jurisdiction was not available under 1581(i) because jurisdiction under 1581(c) would still be available to the plaintiff at the conclusion of the CVD investigation. 95 The court also agreed with the government that the remedy available under 1581(c) would not be manifestly inadequate. 96 The court said that it was not clear that Commerce was prohibited from applying the CVD law to NMEs, because nothing in the statute excluded NMEs from the CVD law. 97 In addition, the court noted that the Federal Circuit, in Georgetown Steel v. United States, 98 did not hold that the CVD law is inapplicable to NMEs, but rather only affirmed Commerce s decision not to apply the CVD law to NMEs in that case. 99 Thus, because it was not clear that Commerce s initiation of the CVD investigation was patently ultra vires, the court held that it would not be futile to let the government decide the issue in the first instance See id. at Id. 92. Id. 93. Id. 94. See id. at See id. at See id. at Id. at F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 99. People s Republic of China, 483 F. Supp. 2d at Id. In this case, the court recognized that one purpose of the administrative proceeding is to allow the parties to argue the issues and to allow the agency to render its own determination. 136 [Vol. 40

15 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION The court also found that the delay of judicial review caused by waiting for Commerce to complete its CVD investigation was not enough to render jurisdiction under 1581(c) manifestly inadequate. 101 Since Commerce had not yet finally decided whether or not to apply the CVD law to NMEs, plaintiff s only obligation at that point was to participate in the investigation. 102 Though plaintiff complained that the burdens of participation, including the costs and business uncertainty, were great, the court found that these were not burdens that rendered jurisdiction under 1581(c) manifestly inadequate. 103 Finally, the court took comfort in the fact that the delay before jurisdiction under 1581(c) would be available, was not lengthy. 104 Based on its determination that jurisdiction would be available under 1581(c) at the conclusion of the investigation and that this jurisdictional avenue was not manifestly inadequate, the court held that it did not possess jurisdiction under 1581(i) and dismissed the case. 105 In the second major case, Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. United States, the court granted the government s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 1581(i), because the plaintiff could have protested Customs demand for payment on a bond and then brought its case under 1581(a). 106 Specifically, plaintiff brought a case under 1581(i) asking the court to declare its bond guaranteeing the payment of AD duties unenforceable following a demand for payment by Customs. 107 Plaintiff claimed that the bond was unenforceable because the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act ( CDSOA ) materially altered its In cases in which reasonable minds can differ, the law does not permit interlocutory appeals to circumvent the administrative decision-making process. See, e.g., Trade Agreements Act of 1979, S. REP. NO at 252 (1979). However, this case leaves open the question of whether ultra vires actions can be challenged despite the availability of final review after the ultra vires action has been taken. In this case, the court ruled in the context of its analysis of the motion for a preliminary injunction that the action of Commerce in initiating the CVD investigation was not patently ultra vires. Had the court ruled that such action was ultra vires, it is not clear whether the availability of an appeal one year after the fact would not be manifestly inadequate depending, of course, on the totality of the circumstances People s Republic of China, 483 F. Supp. 2d at Id Id. at Id Id. at Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1331, (Ct. Int l Trade 2007). This decision was recently affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) Id. at ] 137

16 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW obligations and thereby discharged plaintiff s obligation under the bond. That is, when the bond was issued, the AD duties payable on the bond were payable to the Treasury, whereas after the CDSOA the AD duties were payable to the domestic industry. 108 The government moved to dismiss on the grounds that jurisdiction under 1581(a) could have been available had plaintiff timely filed a protest of Customs demand for payment. 109 The court first determined that [a]t its core, Plaintiff s complaint is a challenge to a Customs charge that is protestable pursuant to 1581(a). 110 Using the framework set out by Judge Restani in Parkdale I, the court found that section 1581(a) jurisdiction was available and offered an adequate avenue of jurisdiction. 111 The court rejected plaintiff s argument that its claim was a defense to a Customs charge, rather than a dispute of the charge itself. 112 Because plaintiff could have timely protested this charge and then sought judicial review at the CIT under 1581(a), the court found jurisdiction under 1581(i) lacking and granted the government s motion to dismiss. 113 In the third case, Corus Staal BV v. United States (Corus I), the court denied plaintiff s request for a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of its entries on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and thus, plaintiff could show no likelihood of success on the merits. 114 The court denied the preliminary injunction at the conclusion of oral argument and later issued Corus I, where it explained the basis for its decision including its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 1581(i). 115 Corus argued that jurisdiction was appropriate under 1581(i) because it was challenging Commerce s liquidation instructions to Customs, directing that Corus entries be liquidated at the as-entered rate, and that such challenges to liquidation instructions may be brought under 1581(i). 116 The court rejected Corus characterization of its complaint as a bare challenge to Commerce s liquidation instruc Id. at Id Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at Corus Staal BV v. United States (Corus I), 493 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1278, 1288 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007) Id Id. at , n [Vol. 40

17 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION tions. 117 In accordance with the Federal Circuit s instruction in Norsk Hydro Canada, Incorporated v. United States, 118 the court examined the true nature of the action and found that Corus claim was not a bare challenge to the liquidation instructions, but was instead a challenge to the dumping margin underpinning those liquidation instructions. 119 As such, Corus could have requested that Commerce conduct an administrative review in an attempt to have those AD duty rates lowered. 120 But Corus had failed to do so, and the other companies who had initially filed administrative review requests had timely withdrawn them. 121 Commerce thus properly rescinded the review and issued the liquidation instructions. 122 The court noted that, had Corus filed its own review request, it could have challenged the accuracy of its AD duty rate during the administrative review process, including its claim that Commerce was not allowed to calculate Corus AD rate using zeroing. 123 In addition, had Commerce continued to calculate Corus AD duty rate using zeroing in the final results of the administrative review, Corus could have sought judicial review under 1581(c). 124 Because jurisdiction would have been available to Corus under 1581(c), had it requested and participated in an administrative review of these entries, the court next considered whether the remedy provided under 1581(c) would have been manifestly inadequate. 125 Corus had not alleged that jurisdiction under 1581(c) would have been manifestly inadequate, and the court found that this remedy would not have been manifestly inadequate. The court thus held that it did not possess jurisdiction under 1581(i) and denied Corus request for a preliminary injunction because Corus had no likelihood of success on the merits. 126 C. Cases Brought Under 1581(i) Not Rendered Moot by the Revocation of the Canadian Lumber AD/CVD Orders The year 2007 also saw the latest installment in the long-running and 117. Id. at Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Corus I, 493 F. Supp. 2d at Id Id Id Id Id Id Id. at , ] 139

18 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW hotly contested dispute between the United States and Canada over imports of Canadian lumber. In Tembec, Incorporated v. United States (Tembec III), the court denied the government s motion to dismiss, reconsider, and vacate its prior decision in Tembec II, finding that the subsequent revocation of the AD/CVD orders on Canadian lumber had not rendered the case moot, and thus, the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 127 By way of background, the CIT had issued two earlier Tembec decisions. In the first decision, Tembec I, the court invalidated the actions of the United States Trade Representative ( USTR ) in ordering implementation of an ITC affirmative threat of material injury determination with respect to imports of Canadian lumber. 128 The court, however, reserved judgment on remedies. 129 In the second decision, Tembec II, the court addressed remedies and directed that all plaintiffs unliquidated entries be liquidated without AD/CVD duties and that Commerce instruct Customs to refund, with interest, all AD/CVD cash deposits on all unliquidated entries made on or after May 22, 2002 (the date of the original AD/CVD orders). 130 In Tembec III, the court addressed the government s motion to dismiss as well as the government s post-judgment motion seeking reconsideration and vacatur of the court s decision in Tembec II. 131 During the Tembec litigation, the governments of Canada and the 127. Tembec, Inc. v. United States (Tembec III), 475 F. Supp. 2d 1393, 1400 (Ct. Int l Trade 2007) Tembec, Inc. v. United States (Tembec I), 441 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Int l Trade 2006). It should be noted that the context of this determination was that a NAFTA panel had reversed the ITC s original affirmative threat of material injury determination as a matter of U.S. domestic law. After a series of remands, the ITC finally issued a negative injury determination that was affirmed by the NAFTA panel. However, in response to a WTO challenge by Canada that also found that the ITC s injury determination was in violation of its international obligations, the USTR directed the ITC to render a determination that was not inconsistent with the WTO decision. The ITC did so by issuing an affirmative threat of injury determination. USTR then directed Commerce to implement that decision, in effect seeking to substitute a new affirmative threat determination for the one that by then had been conclusively reversed by the NAFTA panel as a matter of U.S. law. This was the implementation that was held to be legally invalid in Tembec I. Id. at See id. at Tembec, Inc. v. United States (Tembec II), 461 F. Supp. 2d 1355, , 1367 (Ct. Int l Trade 2006) See Tembec III, 475 F. Supp. 2d at The CIT s decision in Tembec II was issued the day after the government s motion to dismiss was filed, which was also the day after the October 12, 2006, agreement between the United States and Canada. Hence, the government subsequently sought reconsideration and vacatur of Tembec II in a post-judgment motion. 140 [Vol. 40

19 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION United States signed an agreement to settle the lumber dispute. 132 Among other things, the agreement provided that, as of October 12, 2006, the AD/CVD orders would be revoked and Customs would liquidate all entries made on or after May 22, 2002, without AD/CVD duties, except that, where liquidation of certain entries is enjoined for AD purposes, the AD liquidation instructions for such entries would be issued upon removal of the injunction. 133 This last proviso was necessary because an injunction covering certain entries subject to AD duties from the first administrative review ( 1st AR entries ) had not been lifted as of the date the agreement went into effect (i.e., October 12, 2006). 134 The injunction covering these entries was subsequently lifted on October 27, The primary issue before the court in Tembec III was whether Commerce s October 12, 2006, revocation of the Orders rendered this case moot and thus ousted the court of jurisdiction to issue Tembec II. 136 The government argued that the case was moot because the October 12, 2006 revocation granted plaintiffs all the relief that was requested in their complaint, and the fact that Customs had not yet carried out the ministerial task of liquidating all entries on that date did not change this fact. 137 Plaintiffs, on the other hand, insisted that the controversy was live when the court issued Tembec II on October 13, 2006, because Customs had not yet lifted the injunctions covering the 1 st AR entries. 138 The court agreed with the plaintiffs argument, finding that the revocation of the AD/CVD orders did not provide plaintiffs with all the relief they sought in their complaint. 139 The court found that plaintiffs complaint sought two things: revocation of the AD/CVD orders, and an order directing that Commerce instruct Customs to liquidate all of their entries without AD/CVD duties. 140 This included the 1st AR entries. Thus, while the revocation of the AD/CVD orders gave plaintiffs most of their relief sought, it did not afford them relief with respect to the liquidation of the 1st AR entries. The court concluded: 132. Id. at Id. at Id. at Id Id. at Id Id Id. at Id. at ] 141

20 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW In short, because the revocation of the Orders neither purported to provide Plaintiffs with all the relief they sought, nor did it do so in fact, this case was not moot on October 12, Therefore, on October 13, 2006, the parties retained a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit....,and the court retained jurisdiction to issue Tembec II. 141 The court thus denied the government s motion to dismiss, reconsider, and vacate its prior decision in Tembec II. 142 Although not dismissing or vacating its decision in Tembec II, the court sua sponte vacated its judgment in Tembec II. 143 The court found that since post-judgment events made clear that plaintiffs had received all the relief they sought in their complaint, it was appropriate to vacate the judgment in Tembec II. 144 III. CASES DEALING WITH THE CDSOA In 2000, Congress amended Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 by adding section 754, the CDSOA. 145 The CDSOA is commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment because Senator Robert Byrd was responsible for having the amendment added as a rider to an agricultural spending bill. Under the CDSOA, Customs collects duties pursuant to AD and CVD orders and places the monies in special accounts within the United States Treasury. 146 Customs then disburses the money to certain affected domestic producers who have submitted a certification attesting that they have incurred enumerated qualifying expenditures. 147 The ITC determines which entities qualify as affected domestic producers, as defined by the CDSOA, and forwards the list of eligible recipients to Customs. 148 The CDSOA defines affected domestic producers as those producers who were petitioner[s] or interested 141. Id. (internal citation omitted) See id. at The court noted the distinction between a decision and a judgment. Specifically, the court noted that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [a] decision consists of the court s findings of fact and conclusions of law...[a]judgment is the pronouncement of that decision and the act that gives [the decision] legal effect. Id. at 1396 n.2 (citations omitted) Id. at U.S.C. 1675c, Pub. L. No , tit. X 1002, 114 Stat (2000) (repealed by Pub. L. No , tit. VII subtit. F 7601(a), 120 Stat. 154 (2006)) See id. 1675c(e) See id. 1675c(b) & (d) See id. 1675c(d). 142 [Vol. 40

21 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION part[ies] in support of the petition with respect to which an antidumping duty order, a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or a countervailing duty order has been entered. 149 In other words, a domestic producer that opposed such a petition is not considered an affected domestic producer and hence is not eligible for CDSOA distributions. Although the CDSOA was repealed in February 2006, the repeal was not made effective until October 1, Thus, AD or CVD duties assessed on entries of goods made and filed before October 1, 2007 will still be distributed under the CDSOA. Because Commerce s administrative review process is retrospective in nature, litigation regarding disbursements under the CDSOA continues to this day. In 2006, the CIT decided two cases that struck down, on constitutional grounds, the CDSOA provision permitting distributions only to those domestic producers who supported the AD and/or CVD petition(s) that led to the AD/CVD orders. In the first case, PS Chez Sidney v. United States International Trade Commission (Chez Sidney I), the court declared that the petition support requirement of the CDSOA was unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 151 The court did not address remedies or whether the petition support requirement was severable from the CDSOA, but instead certified these issues for appeal to the Federal Circuit pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade Rule 54(b). 152 In the second case, SKF USA Inc. v. United States (SKF I), the court also struck down the CDSOA s petition support requirement as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as made applicable to the federal government by the Fifth Amendment s Due Process clause. 153 The court in SKF I found the petition support requirement severable from the CDSOA and remanded the case to Customs and the ITC to review their decisions denying SKF CDSOA disbursements in accordance with this opinion. 154 In 2007, both of these cases were back before the CIT. In PS Chez 149. See id. 1675c(b)(1) See Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No , 7601(b), 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006) PS Chez Sidney, LLC v. United States Int l Trade Comm n (Chez Sidney I), 442 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1359 (Ct. Int l Trade 2006) Id SKF USA Inc. v. United States (SKF I), 451 F. Supp. 2d 1355, (Ct. Int l Trade 2006) Id. 2008] 143

ARTICLE 1904 BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW. Pursuant to the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

ARTICLE 1904 BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW. Pursuant to the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ARTICLE 1904 BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW Pursuant to the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ) In the Matter of: ) ) BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW OF CARBON AND ) Secretariat File No. CERTAIN ALLOY STEEL WIRE ROD

More information

CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES

CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES CITATION BY U.S. COURTS TO DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CASES Lawrence R. Walders* The topic of the Symposium is the citation to foreign court precedent in domestic jurisprudence.

More information

UNITED STATES SECTION 129(c)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT

UNITED STATES SECTION 129(c)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT US - Section 129(c)(1) URAA UNITED STATES SECTION 129(c)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT WT/DS221/R Adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body on 30 August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PROCEDURAL

More information

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DECISIONS RENDERED IN 2013 UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DECISIONS RENDERED IN 2013 UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DECISIONS RENDERED IN 2013 UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) RESIDUAL JURISDICTION DANIEL L. PORTER AND CLAUDIA D. HARTLEBEN* ABSTRACT In 2013, the United States Court of International

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, and GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, Plaintiff-Appellee, and GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, Plaintiff-Appellee, and GOVERNMENT

More information

WTO Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law

WTO Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law Order Code RS22154 Updated January 30, 2007 WTO Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law Summary Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congress has comprehensively dealt with the

More information

Under section 516A(e)(2) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1516a(e)(2)), if the reviewing court

Under section 516A(e)(2) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1516a(e)(2)), if the reviewing court TITLE I: AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 Section 101. Limitation on Liquidation Present Law Under section 516A(e)(2) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1516a(e)(2)), if the reviewing court sustains the plaintiff

More information

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases Order Code RL32014 WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases Updated August 14, 2007 Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney American Law Division WTO Dispute Settlement: Status

More information

Recent Developments in NAFTA Law

Recent Developments in NAFTA Law Law and Business Review of the Americas Volume 15 2009 Recent Developments in NAFTA Law Melissa Long Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.smu.edu/lbra Recommended Citation Melissa Long,

More information

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/10/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-19008, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade

More information

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney January 29, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and

More information

19 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

19 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES CHAPTER 4 - TARIFF ACT OF 1930 SUBTITLE IV - COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES Part I - Imposition of Countervailing Duties 1671. Countervailing duties imposed (a) General

More information

CANFOR CORPORATION AND TERMINAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Claimants/Investors, -and- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Party.

CANFOR CORPORATION AND TERMINAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Claimants/Investors, -and- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Party. IN THE CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1126 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN CANFOR CORPORATION AND TERMINAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., -and-

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22154 May 24, 2005 WTO Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law Summary Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congress

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, and NUCOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, and GALLATIN STEEL COMPANY, SSAB NORTH AMERICAN

More information

19 USC 1673a. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

19 USC 1673a. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES CHAPTER 4 - TARIFF ACT OF 1930 SUBTITLE IV - COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES Part II - Imposition of Antidumping Duties 1673a. Procedures for initiating an antidumping duty

More information

UNITED STATES CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHINA

UNITED STATES CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHINA * 19 January 2018 (18-0485) Page: 1/28 Original: English UNITED STATES CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CHINA Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding

More information

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RL30461 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Trade Remedy Law Reform in the 107 th Congress Updated April 20, 2002 William H. Cooper Specialist In International Trade and Finance

More information

19 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

19 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 19 - CUSTOMS DUTIES CHAPTER 4 - TARIFF ACT OF 1930 SUBTITLE III - ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Part III - Ascertainment, Collection, and Recovery of Duties 1514. Protest against decisions of Customs

More information

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases

WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases Jeanne J. Grimmett Legislative Attorney April 23, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional

More information

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS184/13 19 February 2002 (02-0823) UNITED STATES ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding

More information

Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value

Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-849] This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/02/2012 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-18900,

More information

Certain Steel Wheels from the People s Republic: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

Certain Steel Wheels from the People s Republic: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/24/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-08469, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Slip Op. UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Slip Op. UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE CÁMARA NACIONAL DE LAS INDUSTRIAS AZUCARERA Y ALCOHOLERA, Plaintiff, AMERICAN SUGAR COALITION, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge v.

More information

World Trade Organization (WTO) Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law

World Trade Organization (WTO) Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 2-4-2011 World Trade Organization (WTO) Decisions and Their Effect in U.S. Law Jeanne J. Grimmett Congressional

More information

CLAIMANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' ANSWERS TO THE TRIBUNAL'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT

CLAIMANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' ANSWERS TO THE TRIBUNAL'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BYRD AMENDMENT UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CANFOR CORPORATION and TERMINAL FOREST PRODUCTS LTD. Investors (Claimants) v. UNITED STATES OF

More information

~upr~m~ (~rt ~f tl~ ~nit~b ~tat~

~upr~m~ (~rt ~f tl~ ~nit~b ~tat~ NoN. 10-1433 and 10-1439 IN THE ~upr~m~ (~rt ~f tl~ ~nit~b ~tat~ UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, and NUCOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, UNITED STATES, ET. AL., Respondents. ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS

More information

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/23/2014 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-22628, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade

More information

NUCOR CORPORATION, UNITED STATES AND TATA STEEL IJMUIDEN BV F/K/A CORUS STAAL BV, REPLY BRIEF

NUCOR CORPORATION, UNITED STATES AND TATA STEEL IJMUIDEN BV F/K/A CORUS STAAL BV, REPLY BRIEF IN THE NUCOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, UNITED STATES AND TATA STEEL IJMUIDEN BV F/K/A CORUS STAAL BV, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL

More information

Laminated Woven Sacks from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

Laminated Woven Sacks from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/03/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-06728, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/29/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-13565, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/18/2016 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2016-25178, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

More information

Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results, Notice of Amended Final Results

Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results, Notice of Amended Final Results This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/06/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-24072, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Slip Op. 12- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 12- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Slip Op. 12- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NTN CORPORATION, NTN BOWER CORPORATION, AMERICAN NTN BEARING MANUFACTURING CORP., NTN-BCA CORPORATION, and NTN

More information

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 02/12/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-02973, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

Trade Remedy Litigation--Choice of Forum and Choice of Law

Trade Remedy Litigation--Choice of Forum and Choice of Law Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 18 Issue 1 Volume 18, Fall 2003, Issue 1 Article 3 October 2003 Trade Remedy Litigation--Choice of Forum and Choice of Law Lawrence R. Walders Neil

More information

TITLE I AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930

TITLE I AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 0 0 TITLE I AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 0 SEC. 0. LIMITATION ON LIQUIDATION Section 0 of the Tariff Act of 0 ( U.S.C. 0) is amended () in section (a)() by adding or section A(c)() after section (a)()

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States NO. 15-307 In the Supreme Court of the United States MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., v. Petitioner, APOTEX INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

More information

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code 97-896 Updated April 5, 2002 Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than as Treaties Summary

More information

( ) Page: 1/32 UNITED STATES CERTAIN SYSTEMIC TRADE REMEDIES MEASURES REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA

( ) Page: 1/32 UNITED STATES CERTAIN SYSTEMIC TRADE REMEDIES MEASURES REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA WT/DS535/1, G/L/1207 G/ADP/D121/1, G/SCM/D117/1 10 January 2018 (18-0253) Page: 1/32 Original: English UNITED STATES CERTAIN SYSTEMIC TRADE REMEDIES MEASURES REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA The following

More information

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/23/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-01146, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/02/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-14180, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS282/AB/R 2 November 2005 (05-5145) Original: English UNITED STATES ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO AB-2005-7 Report of the Appellate

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress Order Code 97-896 Updated January 31, 2003 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than as Treaties Summary

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv UU.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv UU. Case: 12-13402 Date Filed: (1 of 10) 03/22/2013 Page: 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13402 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21203-UU [DO NOT PUBLISH]

More information

PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF

PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF No. 12-148 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HITACHI HOME ELECTRONICS (AMERICA), INC., Petitioner, v. THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and ROSA HERNANDEZ, PORT DIRECTOR,

More information

Current Developments of WTO Dispute Settlement Body Findings on the U.S. Antidumping Sunset Review Regime

Current Developments of WTO Dispute Settlement Body Findings on the U.S. Antidumping Sunset Review Regime Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 3 2006 Current Developments of WTO Dispute Settlement Body Findings on the U.S. Antidumping Sunset Review Regime Changho Sohn Columbia

More information

Article 11. Initiation and Subsequent Investigation

Article 11. Initiation and Subsequent Investigation 1 ARTICLE 11... 1 1.1 Text of Article 11... 1 1.2 General... 3 1.2.1 Anti-Dumping Agreement... 3 1.3 Article 11.2... 3 1.3.1 "caused by subsidized imports"... 3 1.3.2 "sufficient evidence"... 4 1.3.3 Relationship

More information

Certain Cased Pencils from the People s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Certain Cased Pencils from the People s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/23/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-01032, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case: 13-57126, 08/25/2016, ID: 10101715, DktEntry: 109-1, Page 1 of 19 Nos. 13-57126 & 14-55231 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE TRUNK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

More information

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/25/2014 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-20155, and on FDsys.gov (BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P) DEPARTMENT OF

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-1460 Michael R. Nack, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Douglas Paul

More information

28 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

28 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART IV - JURISDICTION AND VENUE CHAPTER 91 - UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 1491. Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee

More information

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People s Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People s Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/07/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-26398, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/07/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-19481, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL TRADE

More information

CIT 2013: A REVIEW OF APPEALS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

CIT 2013: A REVIEW OF APPEALS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION CIT 2013: A REVIEW OF APPEALS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION ADAMS LEE* ABSTRACT In 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued six decisions involving the antidumping (AD)

More information

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER Case 113-cv-00544-RWS Document 16 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION THE DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and DR. EUGENE

More information

ANNEX D. Oral Statements, First and Second Panel meetings

ANNEX D. Oral Statements, First and Second Panel meetings Page D-1 ANNEX D Oral Statements, First and Second Panel meetings Content Page Annex D-1 Executive Summary of the Oral Statement of Japan First meeting D-2 Annex D-2 Executive Summary of the Oral Statement

More information

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/16/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00570, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International

More information

Case 1:05-cv RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:05-cv RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:05-cv-02345-RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEMBEC INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Action No. 05-2345 (RMC UNITED STATES

More information

Expanding the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of International Trade: Proposals by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association

Expanding the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of International Trade: Proposals by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 18 1-1-2001 Expanding the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of International Trade: Proposals by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1 Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.

More information

No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]

No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 132 September Term,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )

More information

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/21/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-20604, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BILLING CODE:

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-1620 Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. National Labor Relations Board lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent ------------------------------

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 ) [Various Tenants] ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) Case No. ) [Landord] ) ) Defendant ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1092 RON NYSTROM, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, TREX COMPANY, INC. and TREX COMPANY, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Joseph S. Presta, Nixon & Vanderhye,

More information

Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview

Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 9-8-2009 Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO): An Overview Jeanne J. Grimmett Congressional

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: September 22, 2014 Decided: February 18, 2015) Docket No.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: September 22, 2014 Decided: February 18, 2015) Docket No. 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: September, 0 Decided: February, 0) Docket No. -0 -----------------------------------------------------------X COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,

More information

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams

More information

Determinations of Adequacy in Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Orders in the United States

Determinations of Adequacy in Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Orders in the United States American University International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 5 Article 1 2011 Determinations of Adequacy in Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Orders in the United States Peter A. Dohlman Follow this and additional

More information

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Decided November 4, 2008 No. 07-1192 YASIN MUHAMMED BASARDH, (ISN 252), PETITIONER v. ROBERT M. GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, RESPONDENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 97 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) DONALD J. TRUMP,

More information

Judicial Branch Card Sort

Judicial Branch Card Sort a Judicial Branch Card Sort Card 1 Which court in the federal system is the court of last resort? Label this court on the diagram. Then describe its function and draw in the number of justices who hear

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar Case: 15-13358 Date Filed: 03/30/2017 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-13358 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-20389-FAM, Bkcy No. 12-bkc-22368-LMI

More information

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Fordham Urban Law Journal Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated

More information

The Supreme Court Decision in Empagran

The Supreme Court Decision in Empagran The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched

More information

Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada

Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada October 4, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Carole Showers Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Edward Yang Senior Director,

More information

Case 1:17-cv JDB Document 86 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv JDB Document 86 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:17-cv-02325-JDB Document 86 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

More information

11 USC 361. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

11 USC 361. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see TITLE 11 - BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 3 - CASE ADMINISTRATION SUBCHAPTER IV - ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS 361. Adequate protection When adequate protection is required under section 362, 363, or 364 of this title of

More information

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 Case: 1:16-cv-07054 Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMUEL LIT, Plaintiff, v. No. 16 C 7054 Judge

More information

Case 7:18-cv DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

Case 7:18-cv DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION Case 7:18-cv-00034-DC Document 18 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION EMPOWER TEXANS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LAURA A. NODOLF, in her official

More information

(a) Short title. This Act may be cited as the "Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2013". (b) Findings. The Congress makes the following findings:

(a) Short title. This Act may be cited as the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2013. (b) Findings. The Congress makes the following findings: TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY ACT OF 2013 Section 1. Short title, findings and purpose (a) Short title. This Act may be cited as the "Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2013". (b) Findings. The Congress makes

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS Rel: 01/22/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

APPEALS OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS: IS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE MOOTNESS MOOT?

APPEALS OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS: IS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE MOOTNESS MOOT? APPEALS OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS: IS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE MOOTNESS MOOT? PRESENTED TO THE BBA BY MARIA ELLENA CHAVEZ-RUARK AT SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP NOVEMBER 9, 2017 I. About the Doctrine A.

More information

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name:

[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: [Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT-2018-0001)] Case Name: ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-85 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States POWEREX CORP., Petitioner, v. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B256117

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR B256117 Filed 6/17/15 Chorn v. Brown CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida

More information

Article XIX. Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products

Article XIX. Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products 1 ARTICLE XIX... 1 1.1 Text of Article XIX... 1 1.2 General... 2 1.2.1 Application of Article XIX... 2 1.2.2 Standard of review... 4 1.3 Article XIX:1: "as a result of unforeseen developments"... 4 1.3.1

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT CREWZERS FIRE CREW ) TRANSPORT, INC., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 2011-5069 ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Appellee. ) APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

More information

x : : : : : : : : : x Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant

x : : : : : : : : : x Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------- LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- STERLING JEWELERS, INC., Defendant. -------------------------------------

More information

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:18-cv-00295-LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., and CONSUMER

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HOLLOWAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP STEVEN GIACALONE. Argued: November 17, 2016 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2017

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HOLLOWAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP STEVEN GIACALONE. Argued: November 17, 2016 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2017 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION

More information

Case 1:07-cv RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:07-cv RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:07-cv-10471-RGS Document 24 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) NOLBERTA AGUILAR, et al., ) ) Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES

More information

U.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *

U.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * Since the June grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, 1 the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might find inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial

More information