Nucor Corp. v. United States, (2009)

Extract

---

Nucor Corp. v. United States, (2009)

PAGE: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE __________________________________________

TIANJIN MAGNESIUM :

INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., :

Plaintiff, :

v. :

UNITED STATES, Court No. 07-00427

: Defendant,

:

and :

US MAGNESIUM LLC, :

Defendant-Intervenor.

____________________________________________________________________________________

[Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor granted.]

Dated: January 8, 2008

Riggle & Craven (David A. Riggle and David J. Craven), for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (David S. Silverbrand); William Kovatch, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Counsel; for Defendant.

King & Spalding, LLP (Stephen A. Jones, Jeffrey M. Telep, and Elizabeth M. Duall, for Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION

RIDGWAY, Judge:

In this action, Plaintiff Tianjin Magnesium International Company, Ltd. ("TMI") contests the decision of the U.S. Department of Commerce rescinding the deferral of the administrative

PAGE: 2

review of TMI's entries under the antidumping duty order on Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China for the period of May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007. According to Commerce, such a request must be denied where a petitioner objects, as US Magnesium LLC ("USM") did here. TMI maintains that USM's objection was untimely, and that Commerce thus erred in rescinding the deferral (which the agency had granted earlier, at TMI's request).

TMI seeks to enjoin the ongoing administrative review of its entries, invoking the Court of International Trade's residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2000).1 See Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. Memorandum in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Pl.'s PI Brief"); see also Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd.'s Memorandum Response to the Motions to Dismiss of the Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor ("Pl.'s Response Brief").

Pending before the Court are Motions to Dismiss filed by both the Government and USM. The Government and USM argue that jurisdiction under § 1581(i) is not available here, because TMI would have adequate remedies in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) after the administrative review is concluded, if TMI is dissatisfied with the final results. The Government and USM further contend that this matter is not yet ripe. See Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("Def.'s Brief"); US Magnesium's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order ("Def.-Int.'s Brief"); Def.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss ("Def.'s

1All statutory citations herein are to the 2000 edition of the United States Code.

PAGE: 3

Reply Brief"); US Magnesium's Reply to Tianjin Magnesium International Co. Ltd.'s Response to the Motions to Dismiss ("Def.-Int.'s Reply Brief"); see also Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ("Def.'s PI Brief"); US Magnesium's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Def.-Int.'s PI Brief").

As discussed in detail below, TMI's claims are not ripe for judicial review. If TMI is dissatisfied with the final results of the review, TMI may challenge the results (including Commerce's underlying findings and conclusions) in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Moreover, because the relief available to TMI in such an action would not be "manifestly inadequate," jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) will not lie. The M...

See the full content of this document

---