Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States
35 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1127
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Giorgio sought CDSOA offsets from customs for four mushroom orders but was not listed as an affected domestic producer (ADP).
- ITC investigations against Chile, China, Indonesia, and India proceeded with Giorgio responding to ITC questionnaires, taking no position on Chile/China/Indonesia petitions and opposing India's petition.
- CDSOA distributed offsets to ADPs; Giorgio received none while intervenors did receive offsets for fiscal years 2001–2010.
- Giorgio filed this action in 2003; there were stays and later amendments to challenge the CDSOA and seek relief.
- SKF USA II upheld the petition support requirement as constitutional; Chez Sidney II upheld controlling principles on related issues while SKF SKF decisions influenced later rulings.
- Court held as-applied constitutional challenges are foreclosed by SKF USA II and lacks jurisdiction over unjust enrichment claims against intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Giorgio’s as-applied First Amendment claim is viable | Giorgio asserts as-applied protection against viewpoint-based eligibility. | SKF USA II forecloses as-applied challenges to petition support. | Dismissed; as-applied claims foreclosed. |
| Whether Giorgio’s as-applied equal protection claim stands | Giorgio contends rational basis violation due to treatment vs. other producers. | SKF USA II rejects equal protection challenge under rational basis. | Dismissed; equal protection claim foreclosed. |
| Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over unjust enrichment claims against intervenors | Supplemental jurisdiction exists due to related CDSOA claims. | No supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) in this court; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. | Lacked subject matter jurisdiction; unjust enrichment claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (upheld petition support requirement as constitutional under First Amendment and equal protection)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1433 (CIT 2006) (initially rejected; later reversed by Fed. Cir. 2009 (SKF USA II))
- PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com’n, 684 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (statutory challenges; later clarified not controlling for constitutional issues)