476 F.Supp.3d 1401
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of fabricated structural steel (FSS) from Canada, Mexico, and China; Commerce issued final results assigning BSM an 8.47% margin and Corey a 0.00% margin.
- BSM filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging aspects of Commerce’s final determination.
- Corey timely filed a request for NAFTA Article 1904 binational panel review of Commerce’s final determination.
- The U.S. (defendant), joined by intervenors and Canada as amicus, moved to dismiss the CIT action, arguing 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g) bars CIT jurisdiction where binational review is requested.
- BSM argued the § 1516a(g)(3) exception applies because Corey lacked standing under U.S. law to request binational review, so no FTA country (or person entitled under U.S. law) requested review.
- The court denied the government’s motion: it held (1) the CIT has authority to decide the threshold jurisdictional question, and (2) Corey lacked standing (a 0.00% margin alone did not establish an injury in fact), so the § 1516a(g)(3) exception preserves CIT jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CIT may decide threshold questions about its own jurisdiction where a NAFTA binational panel request exists | BSM: CIT must decide whether the § 1516a(g)(3) exception applies; statutory text and separation-of-powers principles require the court to resolve threshold jurisdictional and standing questions | U.S./Corey/Canada: Determinations about whether a party may properly request binational review (standing) belong to the NAFTA panel, divesting CIT jurisdiction under § 1516a(g) | CIT may decide its own jurisdictional questions; § 1516a(g) exceptions and separation-of-powers concerns show Congress intended judicial resolution of threshold issues |
| Whether § 1516a(g) precludes review in CIT because a binational panel request was filed | BSM: Exception in § 1516a(g)(3) applies because no U.S. law–entitled party requested panel review | U.S.: A timely NAFTA panel request by Corey precludes CIT jurisdiction under § 1516a(g) | § 1516a(g) can preclude CIT where proper binational review is requested, but exceptions (including (g)(3)) apply and are for the court to evaluate |
| Whether Corey had standing under U.S. law to request binational review | BSM: Corey lacks Article III standing because its 0.00% margin does not show injury in fact | U.S./Corey: Corey’s panel request should be treated as a request by an FTA country that divests CIT jurisdiction | Corey lacked standing: a 0.00% margin, without more, fails to establish an injury in fact, so no party entitled under U.S. law requested binational review and CIT jurisdiction remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing is a threshold case-or-controversy requirement)
- Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (federal courts limited to actual cases or controversies)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (separation-of-powers limits and judicial institutional integrity)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (separation-of-powers considerations in adjudicative authority)
- PAO Severstal v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1411 (party assigned a zero dumping margin lacks standing to challenge the determination)
- Ontario Forest Indus. Ass’n v. United States, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (binational panel process replaces forum but not remedies)