2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 131
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- Furniture Brands challenged CDSOA petition‑support requirement and ITC/Customs denials of ADP status for fiscal years 2006‑2008.
- CDSOA funds antidumping/countervailing duties to eligible ADPs; provisions and distributions governed by 19 U.S.C. §1675c, repealed later but pre‑repeal entries still possible.
- ITC denied Furniture Brands ADP status; plaintiff sought CDSOA distributions and asserted constitutional claims under First and Fifth Amendments.
- Court reviewed four dispositive motions: interpleader intervenors for judgment on pleadings; Customs/ITC for judgment on pleadings; plaintiff for dismissal or leave to amend.
- SKF USA II and PS Chez Sidney II addressed CDSOA constitutionality, guiding this court’s analysis; plaintiff sought to amend the complaint with two new claims.
- Court ultimately dismissed the Second Supplemental Complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(4). | Furniture Brands contends CDSOA is not a law providing for administration/enforcement of duties. | CDSOA constitutes an administrative law within §1581(i)(4) governing administration of duties. | Yes; CDSOA falls within §1581(i)(4) jurisdiction. |
| Whether petition‑support requirement violates First or Fifth Amendment, as construed by SKF USA II. | SKF USA II reasoning should bar denial of ADP status based on expression, not actions. | SKF USA II upholds petition‑support requirement as constitutional under commercial speech scrutiny. | SKF USA II controls; petition‑support requirement is constitutional. |
| Whether proposed Counts 3–4 adding new claims would survive futility review and amend the complaint. | New counts would align with SKF USA II interpretation and CDSOA structure. | Counts fail to state plausible claims; amendment would be futile. | Amendment denied as futile; Counts 3–4 not viable. |
| Whether the Second Supplemental Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. | Claims challenge CDSOA structure and administration. | Under Iqbal/Twombly, complaint lacks plausible facts; SKF USA II controls. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Whether plaintiff can relitigate after SKF USA II overruling; Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. cited. | Sorrell undermines SKF USA II; claims should proceed. | Sorrell does not overturn SKF USA II or require different analysis here. | Sorrell does not undermine SKF USA II; no change in result. |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (CDSOA constitutionality; petition support valid under First/Fifth Amendments; commercial speech scrutiny applied)
- Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction and CDSOA context in trade remedy cases)
- Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. United States, 468 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (federal court review of antidumping/CBP decisions; CDSOA context)
- Candle Artisans Guild v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (precedents on CDSOA and administrative rulings in ITC/USCIT)