2020 CIT 93
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- Commerce opened an antidumping investigation of fresh tomatoes from Mexico in 1996, then entered successive suspension agreements with Mexican producers (1996, 2002, 2008, 2013) that halted duties while the agreements were operative.
- The 2013 Suspension Agreement allowed signatories to withdraw on 90 days’ notice; Commerce withdrew from the 2013 Agreement effective May 7, 2019, and resumed the 1996 investigation toward a final determination.
- Commerce issued a final determination on October 25, 2019; the ITC issued an affirmative injury determination in December 2019.
- Before final duties took effect, Plaintiffs (Mexican growers and associations) voluntarily signed a new 2019 Suspension Agreement effective September 19, 2019, which superseded the 2013 Agreement and prevents application of the October 2019 final determination while operative.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple complaints asking the Court to (among other relief) declare Commerce’s termination of the 2013 Agreement unlawful, reinstate the 2013 Agreement, void the 2019 Agreement, and set aside the final determination and related rate/margin findings.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction / mootness and failure to state a claim; the Court granted dismissal because Plaintiffs’ challenges were moot once Plaintiffs signed and benefited from the 2019 Agreement, and the capable-of-repetition exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenge to Commerce’s termination of the 2013 Suspension Agreement and resumption of the investigation | The controversy remains live; signing the 2019 Agreement does not strip the Court of power to declare the prior termination unlawful and reinstate the 2013 Agreement | Plaintiffs voluntarily signed the 2019 Agreement; that act superseded the 2013 Agreement and moots any claim seeking reinstatement | Moot. Plaintiffs’ voluntary execution of the 2019 Agreement superseded the 2013 Agreement; the Court cannot give effectual relief reinstating it |
| Challenge to legality of the 2019 Suspension Agreement and to Commerce’s final determination | If the Court finds the final determination unlawful, that would infect and invalidate the 2019 Agreement, so the case is justiciable | Plaintiffs enjoy the 2019 Agreement’s protections (no duties apply while operative) and can withdraw if they wish to trigger duties; therefore no live controversy now | Moot. The final determination has no practical effect while the 2019 Agreement is operative; plaintiffs’ claims seeking to void the 2019 Agreement are moot because plaintiffs remain signatories and receive its benefits |
| Jurisdictional basis (28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) v. § 1581(i)) and timeliness | Plaintiffs invoked § 1581(c) (and alternatively § 1581(i)(4)) to challenge Commerce’s final determination | The Court should dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because there is no live controversy; § 1581(i) is not available where another subsection applies | The Court did not resolve timeliness or § 1581(i) in depth because mootness was dispositive; noted precedent limits § 1581(i) where § 1581(c) could apply |
| Applicability of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness | The actions are transitory and likely to evade review; the exception therefore applies | Plaintiffs signed the new agreement and receive its protections; there is no reasonable expectation the same complaining parties will be subjected to the same action again | Exception not satisfied. No reasonable expectation of recurrence given plaintiffs signed the 2019 Agreement; claims dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (Article III requires an ongoing case or controversy at all stages of review)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (mootness doctrine: suit becomes moot when issues are no longer live)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) ("capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception requires reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (recognition of inherently transitory claims that can evade review)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (§ 1581(i) is residual and not available when another § 1581 subsection could apply)
- Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) (relief that is no longer effectual cannot redress plaintiffs’ injury)
- Am. Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 6 C.I.T. 122 (1983) (challenge to a suspended or superseded suspension agreement can be moot)
- Usinas Siderúrgicas De Minas Gerais S/A v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 422 (2002) (final determinations issued while a suspension agreement is effective may be unripe and moot until the agreement is dissolved)