SPEC. COMMOD. GROUP ON NON-RUBBER FOOTWEAR v. US, Court No. 85-4-00579.

Decision Date03 October 1985
Docket NumberCourt No. 85-4-00579.
Citation620 F. Supp. 719,9 CIT 481
PartiesSPECIAL COMMODITY GROUP ON NON-RUBBER FOOTWEAR FROM BRAZIL, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Footwear Industries of America, Inc., Intervenor.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Plaia & Schaumberg, Washington, D.C. (Herbert S. Shelley and Joel D. Kaufman, Washington, D.C., on the motion) for plaintiff.

Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C. (Velta A. Melnbrencis, New York City, on the motion) for defendant.

Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, D.C. (Michael R. Kershow and Lauren R. Howard, Washington, D.C., on the motion) defendant for intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CARMAN, Judge.

Before the Court is a motion to intervene in an action by Special Commodity Group on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil (plaintiff) challenging the Commerce Department's final determination imposing a countervailing duty on rubber footwear from Brazil. Plaintiff brought the action under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. Proposed intervenor is Footwear Industries of America, Inc. (FIA), seeking to intervene on the side of defendant. The issue presented is whether a trade association may intervene in a section 516A action when it qualified as an "interested party" during the administrative proceedings but by the time action was commenced its composition had changed so that a majority of its members were not manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers of a like product.

FACTS

FIA is a trade association which, as of June 28, 1985, was comprised of 68 manufacturers of non-rubber footwear and 76 suppliers to the industry. It was formed by the consolidation of American Shoe Center, Inc., and American Footwear Industries, Inc. (AFIA). AFIA was the original petitioner in the proceeding which resulted in the countervailing duty order challenged by plaintiff. After consolidation, FIA continued to participate in the review proceeding. At the time of FIA's participation in the review proceeding, a majority of its members were manufacturers of non-rubber footwear.

OPINION

The right to intervene in a section 516A action is based on 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B), which provides that

(1) Any person who would be adversely affected or aggrieved by a decision in a civil action pending in the Court of International Trade may, by leave of court, intervene in such action, except that
... (B) in a civil action under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, only an interested party who was a party to the proceeding in connection with which the matter arose may intervene, and such person may intervene as a matter of right.

The statute defines "interested party" as including "a trade or business association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a like product in the U.S." 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(E), incorporated by reference in section 2631(k)(1). Thus, to intervene in a section 516A action as a matter of right, a domestic trade association must have been a party to the administrative proceedings and a majority of its members must manufacture, produce, or wholesale a like product. The statute does not allow permissive intervention.

The parties here do not dispute that FIA was a party to the proceedings. It is also clear that a majority of FIA's members are now suppliers. Plaintiff therefore contends that FIA is not an interested party within the meaning of section 2631(j)(1)(B) because a trade association must have a majority of its members directly involved with the manufacture, production, or wholesale of a like product at the time the action was commenced. The Court does not read section 2631(j)(1)(B) so narrowly.

In American Grape Growers v. United States, 9 CIT ___, 604 F.Supp. 1245 (1985), the court allowed an association to intervene, although only one-half of its members produced a like product, clearly not a "majority." The court concluded from the legislative history and the purpose of the statute that to construe the statute narrowly in that case would defeat the intention of Congress. The court reasoned that

the standing requirement for associations was primarily designed to keep out broad-spectrum, general organizations who would always have a few members with direct interest in the product under investigation. The "majority" requirement in the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 was explained as follows in the report of the Senate Committee on Finance:
This limitation is believed to fairly delimit those groups with sufficient interest to always be considered interested parties. An association representative of importers generally, or business generally, would not be considered an interested party under this limitation, although a sub-group of such an association may qualify. S.Rep. 96-249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1979).
In the opinion of the Court, the remedial purpose of this provision, intended as it was to set a fair standard for access to judicial review, justifies the conclusion that an organization should have
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Citrosuco Paulista, SA v. US, Court No. 87-06-00703.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 30 Diciembre 1988
    ...in connection with which the matter arose." 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) (1982). The statute does not allow for permissive intervention. Special Commodity Group on Non-Rubber Footwear From Brazil v. United States, 9 CIT 481, 482-83, 620 F.Supp. 719, 721 (1985). FCM was a party to the administr......
  • Former Employees of Rohm and Hass Co. v. Chao, Slip Op. 03-7.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 23 Enero 2003
    ....... Slip Op. 03-7. . Court No. 00-07-00333. . United States Court of ...The Secretary must certify a group of workers as eligible to apply for trade ......
  • Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. U.S., Slip Op. 09-98. Court No. 06-00229.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 15 Septiembre 2009
    ...States, 5 CIT 155, 156-57 (1983); Special Commodity Group on Nonrubber Footwear from Braz., Am. Ass'n of Exps. & Imps. v. United States, 9 CIT 481, 483-84, 620 F.Supp. 719, 721-22 (1985); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 2 CIT 254, 256-59, 529 F.Supp. 664, 667-69 17. AHUG also ......
  • Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. U.S., Slip Op. 09-56.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 15 Junio 2009
    ...Radio Corp., 5 CIT at 156-57; Special Commodity Group on Non-Rubber Footwear From Brazil, Am. Ass'n of Exps. & Imps. v. United States, 9 CIT 481, 483-84, 620 F.Supp. 719, 721-22 (1985); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 2 CIT 254, 256-59, 529 F.Supp. 664, 667-69 For the foregoin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT