Almond Bros. Lumber Co. v. United States
651 F.3d 1343
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- This case concerns a long-running US–Canada softwood lumber dispute, with domestic producers challenging the USTR's 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) and the CIT's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The dispute traces to the 1986 MOU after Commerce found Canadian subsidies; Canada terminated the MOU in 1991, leading to a 1992 countervailing duty order and related injurys findings.
- The 1996 SLA followed to resolve ongoing disputes, allowing Canada to export some lumber duty-free and prohibiting certain self-initiated investigations; the USTR later revoked the May 22, 2002 orders under the SLA.
- After the 1996 SLA, new petitions in 2001 led to antidumping and countervailing duty orders in 2002, fueling further litigation that culminated in the 2006 SLA.
- The 2006 SLA required export charges by Canada and refunded duties, with approximately $500 million distributed to Coalition members, excluding certain non-Coalition producers like the appellants.
- Appellants argued the 2006 SLA was entered under §2411 (specific authority) and thus within the CIT's jurisdiction; the government contended the action was under §2171 (general authority) and not within §1581(i).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CIT have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)? | Almond contends the SLA was §2411-based, bringing it within §1581(i). | Government argues 2006 SLA was under §2171, not §1581(i). | Yes; the SLA was entered under §2411, giving CIT jurisdiction. |
| Was the 2006 SLA entered under §2411 or §2171? | USTR acted under §2411 to remedy unfair trade practices. | USTR relied on §2171 general authority; no §2411 procedural prerequisites were required. | The court held the 2006 SLA was entered under §2411. |
| Did failure to observe §2412/2414 procedural requirements defeat jurisdiction under §1581(i)? | Procedural steps in 1991 sufficed; ongoing dispute makes §2412/2414 not dispositive. | Lack of 2412/2414 process undermines §2411 basis and CIT jurisdiction. | Procedural requirements are not dispositive; jurisdiction remains under §1581(i). |
| Is there a non-justiciable political question governing the dispute? | Political question concerns should not bar review given statute-based jurisdiction. | Issues implicate non-justiciable policy questions. | Court declines to decide on remand; political-question issue left to CIT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (CIT has broad residual jurisdiction over import-related matters)
- Conoco, Inc. v. United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 1581 (Fed.Cir. 1994) (Congress intended to centralize import-related suits)
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988) (specific statutes govern over general provisions)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) (the meaning of 'law' in §1581(i) can be broad)