Importer Explicitly Conceded Its Case Lacks Jurisdiction, US Says
In support of its motion to dismiss, the U.S. pointed out that importer Houston Shutters had directly conceded in its reply (see 2504010074) that jurisdiction wasn’t unavailable under 28 U.S C. 1581(c) (Houston Shutters v. United States, CIT # 24-00175).
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 importer has filed two suits on the same matter -- the Commerce Department’s refusal to initiate a changed circumstances review that would let Houston Shutters seek an exclusion for wood shutter components from antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders (see 2503130054). Both cases claimed jurisdiction under both 1581(c) and 1581(i), but the importer said that in the present case, “out of an abundance of caution,” it was “maintaining this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).”
In its reply, Houston Shutters titled its first argument heading “Jurisdiction Being Unavailable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) Demonstrates the Need for Jurisdiction to Exist Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i),” the U.S. pointed out.
It argued that while the importer claimed the legislative history behind 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) is “unclear,” that is irrelevant because the language of the provision is clear on its face.
And “to the extent Houston Shutters claims that all cases involving duties must be heard ‘on their merits’ pursuant to one or another prong of section 1581 jurisdiction, it is simply wrong,” the government said.
AD/CVD law sets timelines by which parties can pursue relief, it said. Parties that miss the boat -- such as Houston Shutters, which “waited until years after the investigation to present its scope arguments” -- are barred from appeal to the trade court, it said.