US Tells CIT Importer Doesn't Have Standing to Sue Over Scope Ruling on Another Importer's Goods
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on July 15 that importer CVB cannot meet constitutional or statutory standing to challenge the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. United States, CIT # 24-00036).
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!
Filing a motion to dismiss, the government said that since CVB is an importer itself, and not a part of the U.S. domestic industry, it can't show that it was injured by the scope decision. What's more is that CVB doesn't even allege Article III standing, the government said. The importer isn't a domestic producer -- "the party that most obviously suffers from dumping and thus enjoys statutory protection and entitlement to bring suit," the brief said.
None of CVB's goods are at issue, the U.S. noted. The company challenges the determination that the entries of another company, Zinus, are outside the scope of the AD order, but "it has failed to demonstrate what stake it has in this determination," the government argued. It's "hard to fathom what relief CVB would experience even if Zinus's merchandise were found to be within the scope of the Order."
Beyond this failure to even allege standing, CVB can't establish standing given that it can't show a "concrete and particularized injury in fact," there's no causal link between the injury and complained-of conduct and any injury wouldn't be redressed by a favorable decision, the U.S. said.
CVB can't "articulate an injury in fact" since it's not a domestic producer whose "production capabilities might be affected by dumped merchandise," the brief said. The scope ruling doesn't cover goods imported by CVB and an allegation that the company will suffer some impact to its imports or sales due to the scope ruling "is abstract in nature." The government said a claim that the company will suffer "some kind of generalized injury by having to compete with another importer" that sells the bedroom furniture at issue "falls far short of the required standard for concrete injury, and does not comport with the goal of the" AD statute.
The U.S. added that CVB can't establish statutory standing since it doesn't fall within the "zone of interests" of the AD statute, since those zones surround players in the domestic industry. The point of the AD statute is to shield the domestic industry from injury from dumped goods. Since CVB isn't a part of the domestic industry, it "does not have interests that are within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated" by the AD law.
Zinus filed its own brief, urging the trade court to dismiss the case due to CVB's lack of standing. Zinus said the importer hasn't suffered any injury from the scope ruling, nor has it "even offered a theory of how it has allegedly suffered any injury." A favorable ruling from the court would not redress any injury allegedly suffered by CVB, the brief said.