Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co. v. United States
2014 CIT 73
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Plaintiff Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (a respondent in an ITC investigation) challenges the ITC’s final negative countervailing-duty (CVD) injury determination for frozen warmwater shrimp, arguing the ITC erred in its negligibility analysis for imports from China.
- In the ITC proceedings the agency found the U.S. industry was not injured by the subject imports; consequently no CVD order issued and any cash deposits paid are subject to statutory return.
- Plaintiff contends it suffered injury during the provisional-measure period and may suffer future harm if Defendant-Intervenor Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (COGSI) succeeds in a separate appeal that could reverse the ITC’s negative injury finding.
- COGSI moved to dismiss for lack of Article III case or controversy, arguing Plaintiff prevailed at the agency level and therefore lacks standing to challenge subsidiary aspects (negligibility) of the ITC’s determination.
- The United States supported COGSI’s motion. The Court considered precedent holding that a prevailing respondent lacks a live controversy to contest parts of an agency decision that caused no present injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to challenge ITC negligibility determination | Plaintiff says it suffered injury from provisional deposits and faces future harm if COGSI’s appeal succeeds | COGSI/United States say Plaintiff prevailed at the agency, no CVD order issued, deposits returned, so no present injury or redressable harm | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no standing; speculative future reversal insufficient |
| Whether payment of provisional cash deposits creates cognizable injury | Plaintiff points to deposits paid during the investigation as injury | Defendants contend deposit payment is an ordinary statutory consequence and deposits are or will be returned, so no compensable injury | Payments do not confer Article III injury while investigation/resolution is pending |
| Whether courts may issue advisory opinions on subsidiary agency errors absent injury | Plaintiff seeks judicial review of negligibility despite no present injury | Defendants argue such review would be an impermissible advisory opinion | Court holds Constitution forbids advisory opinions; dismissal warranted |
| Whether dismissal now would be unfair because plaintiff could be precluded from later challenge | Plaintiff asserts dismissal would be unfair if COGSI’s separate appeal proceeds | Defendants argue plaintiff retains the right to challenge any remand redetermination or to bring a new suit later | Court rejects fairness argument; plaintiff retains ability to challenge remand results; dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden to prove it)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury fairly traceable to challenged action)
- Royal Thai Gov’t v. United States, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (prevailing respondent in administrative proceeding lacks case or controversy to challenge parts of the agency decision)
- Freeport Minerals Co. v. United States, 758 F.2d 629 (similar principle that no jurisdiction when respondent prevailed)
- Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (federal courts may not issue advisory opinions)