Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States
2014 CIT 61
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Borusan files suit for mandamus to compel Commerce verification in the countervailing duty investigation of OCTG from Turkey; Commerce issued a preliminary negative determination and deferred verification of HRS LTAR; GOT-provided information and post-preliminary analyses produced a 25.76% subsidy margin based on HRS LTAR; Commerce stated verifiers would not verify GOT-provided information on HRS LTAR; final determination anticipated July 10, 2014 and plaintiff seeks immediate verification and report; court considers jurisdiction sua sponte and ultimately dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1581(i) jurisdiction lies here | Borusan relies on § 1581(i) as alternative to inadequate § 1581(c) relief | Court should rely on § 1581(c) and § 1516a for final-review remedies | § 1581(i) not available because § 1581(c) remedies suffice unless manifestly inadequate |
| Whether § 1581(c) relief is manifestly inadequate | Review under § 1581(c) cannot remedy alleged denial of verification | Waiting for final determination is adequate under § 1581(c) | Not manifestly inadequate; § 1581(c) remedy adequate |
| Whether final agency action under the APA is required for § 1581(i) review | Potential APA claim if verification constitutes final agency action | No need to reach APA unless § 1581(i) invoked | APA action not reached; § 1581(i) not invoked |
| Whether plaintiff may obtain mandamus to compel verification under § 1581(i) | Mandamus appropriate to secure verification | Mandamus inappropriate where § 1581(c) remedy exists and is adequate | Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1581(i) when § 1581(c) adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (§1581(i) requires manifest inadequacy of other remedies)
- NEC Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (remedial avenues under §1581(c) can be adequate; prejudgment concerns differ by context)
- Dofasco Inc. v. United States, 326 F.Supp.2d 1340 (2004) (modulating §1581(i) availability when continuing review is possible)
- Nissan Motor Corp. v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 1450 (CIT 1986) (considered timeliness of remedies under §1581(i) vs. final determinations)
- Carnation Enterprises v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 719 F.Supp. 1084 (1989) (§1581(i) jurisdiction where reviews are allegedly ultra vires)