Qingdao Barry Flooring Co. v. United States
190 F. Supp. 3d 1274
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Qingdao Barry filed a petition for a new shipper review (NSR) of antidumping duties on multilayered wood flooring from China and then brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Commerce to conduct the NSR.
- After the suit was filed, Commerce published three Federal Register notices: (1) initiation of the NSR (Oct. 26, 2015); (2) preliminary rescission of the NSR because the single reported sale was not "bona fide" (June 2, 2016); and (3) final rescission of the NSR (July 19, 2016).
- Qingdao Barry contended Commerce did not lawfully "conduct" the NSR, alleging Commerce truncated the review to coincide with another review’s deadline and failed to hold a required public hearing.
- The government maintained Commerce had initiated and conducted the requested NSR and thus the relief sought in the complaint had been afforded.
- The court examined its jurisdictional basis (§ 1581(c) and § 1581(i)) and determined the dispute was moot because Commerce had already initiated and conducted the review as shown by the Federal Register notices.
- The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction (mootness) and noted Qingdao Barry later filed a separate suit contesting the final results of the NSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s alleged refusal to initiate/conduct an NSR presented a live Article III controversy | Commerce failed to initiate and conduct the NSR as ordered | Commerce did initiate and conduct the NSR; plaintiff received requested relief | Moot: no live controversy after Commerce’s initiation and rescission notices; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) to review failure to initiate an NSR | Action brought under § 1581(c) to compel initiation/conduct | § 1581(c) covers review of final AD decisions, not refusal to initiate/conduct reviews | § 1581(c) does not provide jurisdiction for a claim challenging Commerce’s refusal to initiate/conduct an NSR |
| Whether § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction or the APA allows this suit to proceed | If not § 1581(c), plaintiff could proceed under § 1581(i)/APA to challenge agency inaction | Even if § 1581(i) could cover such claims, there is no live claim once Commerce acted | Court need not resolve § 1581(i) applicability because action is moot after Commerce’s administrative actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Motion Sys. v. Bush, 437 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction for actions arising under the tariff laws)