Plaintiff Seeking Reconsideration to Relitigate Old Arguments, DOJ Says
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, shouldn't be allowed reconsideration at the Court of International Trade following the dismissal of their case challenging the Commerce Department's failure to conduct verification in an antidumping duty investigation due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the government said in an Aug. 11 response motion (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The case concerns the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy. In the investigation record, Ellwood City challenged the lack of verification at CIT (see 2201200032), whereas the U.S. argued that because Ellwood City failed to raise the verification question during the investigation, the matter should be dismissed. Judge Stephen Vaden agreed and dismissed the case (see 2206140044). Ellwood City then filed for reconsideration, arguing Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case revealed how futile raising the point administratively would have been (see 2207150049).
In its response motion, the government argued the court's dismissal ruling wasn't based on any error of fact or law or underlying error in the Commerce investigation, noting Ellwood City, “complimented the agency for its verification procedures -- until those procedures resulted in a final determination not to Ellwood City's liking.”
Ellwood City is attempting to relitigate its previously rejected claim the court shouldn't have required exhaustion of administrative remedies because doing so would have been futile, the government said. Reconsideration shouldn't be granted "merely to give a losing party another chance to re-litigate the case," Commerce said.
The other AD case that Ellwood City referenced in its reconsideration motion is "unadjudicated and nonprecedential," the government said. Commerce’s verification processes "have always been made ... on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis." Further, argued the motion, Commerce may well have made procedural modifications during the investigation if Ellwood City had "not remained silent but instead stated their objections early and often.”