Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 06-00189.,Slip Op. 10-08. |
| Parties | ZHENGZHOU HARMONI SPICE CO., LTD., Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd., Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd., and Sunny Import and Export Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Fresh Garlic Producers Association, Christopher Ranch, L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice (Richard P. Schroeder); for Defendant.
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (Michael J. Coursey and John M. Herrmann), for Defendant-Intervenor
Fresh Garlic Producers Association, and its individual members, Christopher Ranch, L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.
In this action, certain Chinese producers/exporters of fresh garlic challenge the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination (the "Final Results") in the agency's tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China.
Although the complaint in this action was filed on behalf of seven Chinese producers/exporters, only four of the seven Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the agency record. See Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. v. United States, 33 CIT ___, ___ & n. 2, 617 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1285 & n. 2 (2009) ("Zhengzhou Harmoni I"). In Zhengzhou Harmoni I, the four Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record was granted in part, and this matter was remanded to Commerce for further consideration. See generally id., 33 CIT ___, 617 F.Supp.2d 1281. The remand results have not yet been filed by the agency.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice, filed on behalf of four Plaintiffs—specifically, the three Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters that did not join in the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (i.e., Jining TransHigh Trading Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing Storage Co., Ltd., and Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd.), as well as Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. ("Harmoni") (one of the Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters which was a party to that motion). See generally Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal ( ); Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant-Intervenors' Opposition to the Partial Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal ( ).1
The Government consents to the dismissal of the four Withdrawing Plaintiffs; and the three remaining Plaintiffs (i.e., Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd., Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., and Sunny Import and Export Ltd.) apparently also do not object. See Pls.' Motion at 1. However, Defendant-Intervenors —domestic producers of fresh garlic ("the Domestic Producers")—oppose the four Plaintiffs' dismissal. See Defendant-Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal ( ).2
Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Partial Consent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice is granted.
Commerce's final determinations in administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders may be challenged in this court by any interested party which participated in the agency proceeding—including foreign producers, exporters, and importers, as well as the domestic industry. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2000). Other interested parties that participated in the agency proceeding may intervene in such actions (whether as defendant-intervenors on the side of Commerce, to defend Commerce's final results as correct, or, less typically, as plaintiff-intervenors). See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) (2000). However, the presence or absence of other parties as intervenors in an action has no bearing on the ability of a plaintiff to obtain full relief.
Thus, for example, if a domestic producer brings an action in this court against Commerce alleging that the dumping margins calculated by the agency for various foreign producers are too low, and if the domestic producer prevails in that action, Commerce will be required to make appropriate changes increasing the dumping margins for the foreign producers at issue —without regard to whether or not the foreign producers participated as defendant-intervenors in that proceeding. By the same token, if a foreign producer/exporter brings an action against Commerce alleging that the calculated dumping margin for the company is too high, and if the foreign producer/exporter prevails in that action, Commerce will be required to make appropriate changes decreasing the foreign producer's dumping margin—without regard to whether or not any domestic producers participated as defendant-intervenors in the proceeding.
In actions such as the case at bar, the only necessary parties are the plaintiff, and the defendant (i.e., Commerce). Under the statutory scheme, there is no procedure —and no need—to compel other parties to participate in litigation in order to accord a plaintiff complete relief. And an aggrieved party—whether foreign or domestic—must maintain its own action in order to ensure its right to seek judicial review and appropriate relief.
The instant action is just one of two that were filed challenging Commerce's Final Results in the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China.3 Just as the instant action was filed by seven Chinese garlic producers/exporters contending that the dumping margins calculated by Commerce in the Final Results are too high, so too the Domestic Producers brought their own separate action, challenging the dumping margins calculated in the Final Results as too low. See generally Complaint (filed May 10, 2006, by Domestic Producers in Court No. 06-00150). As is typical in such cases, the Domestic Producers intervened as Defendant-Intervenors in the instant action (to defend Commerce against the Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters' claims that the dumping margins calculated by the agency were too high); and the seven Chinese garlic producers/exporters intervened as Defendant-Intervenors in the Domestic Producers' action (to defend Commerce against the Domestic Producers' claims that the calculated dumping margins were too low).
The two actions were subsequently consolidated, at the parties' request. However, the Domestic Producers voluntarily dismissed their action soon thereafter. See Consent Motion to Sever and Dismiss; Order (Dec. 29, 2006) ( Domestic Producers' Complaint in Court No. 06-00150, and approving their continued participation as Defendant-Intervenors in the instant action). The Domestic Producers offered no reasons for dismissing their action but stated their intent to "continue to participate ... as Defendant-Intervenors in [the instant] action." See Consent Motion to Sever and Dismiss. The Domestic Producers thus voluntarily abandoned their role as Plaintiffs challenging the Final Results as too low, and relegated themselves to the role of Defendant-Intervenors in the sole remaining case—the instant case, commenced by the Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters.
The Amended Scheduling Order entered at the request of all parties established deadlines for various events, including Plaintiffs' filing of a Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. Thereafter, four of the seven Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters filed a timely Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, briefing a total of seven issues as to which they assert that Commerce erred in its Final Determination. Plaintiffs' counsel offered no explanation as to the three Plaintiffs that did not join in the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. Similarly, the Government and the Domestic Producers made no mention of the fact in their briefs. But the Court's opinion took note. See Zhengzhou Harmoni I, 33 CIT at ___ & n. 2, 617 F.Supp.2d at 1285 & n. 2.4
Zhengzhou Harmoni I granted the four Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record as to five of their seven claims, and remanded this matter to Commerce for further consideration. See Zhengzhou Harmoni I, 33 CIT at ___, 617 F.Supp.2d at 1334.5 In the course of the agency's ongoing remand proceeding, the administrative record has been supplemented with additional factual information concerning at least some of the five issues on which the four Plaintiff Chinese producers/exporters prevailed in Zhengzhou Harmoni I, including the issue of the valuation of raw garlic bulb.
The new data placed on the record concerning the valuation of raw garlic bulb reportedly include information drawn from the Azadpur Produce Marketing Committee's "Market Information Bulletin," which, according to the Domestic Producers, "reflect[s] a surrogate value that is greater than the value [that Commerce] relied upon" in its Final Results. See Def.-Ints.' Opposition at 3. The Domestic Producers suggest that "if [Commerce] ultimately relies on this additional information to value garlic bulbs in its [remand results], there is a possibility that the antidumping margins calculated for the Plaintiffs will be higher...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 11–119.Court No. 06–00189.
...that filed the complaint in this action moved for voluntary dismissal. See generally Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 34 CIT ––––, 675 F.Supp.2d 1320 (2010) ( “ Zhengzhou Harmoni II ”).3 Zhengzhou Harmoni II granted the motion and dismissed the four Plaintiffs from this action ......
-
Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States
...in this action moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was granted. See generally Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 34 CIT ––––, 675 F.Supp.2d 1320 (2010) (dismissing action as to Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd., Jining Trans–High Trading Co., Ltd., Jinxiang Shanya......
-
One World Techs., Inc. v. United States
...over a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss. Tomoegawa, 15 C.I.T. at 190, 763 F.Supp. 614 ; see also Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 40, 47–49, 675 F.Supp.2d 1320 (2010) (discussing that dismissal without prejudice has a greater risk of legal prejudice than dismissal with......