ConfederacióN De Asociaciones Agrícolas Del Estado De Sinaloa v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 June 2019
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 19-69,Court No. 19-00059
• Citation: 389 F.Supp.3d 1386
• Parties: CONFEDERACIÓN DE ASOCIACIONES AGRÍCOLAS DEL ESTADO DE SINALOA, A.C., Consejo Agrícola de Baja California, A.C., Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Asociación de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistema Producto Tomate, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and The Florida Tomato Exchange, Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

389 F.Supp.3d 1386

CONFEDERACIÓN DE ASOCIACIONES AGRÍCOLAS DEL ESTADO DE SINALOA, A.C., Consejo Agrícola de Baja California, A.C., Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Asociación de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistema Producto Tomate, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant,andThe Florida Tomato Exchange, Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 19-69

Court No. 19-00059

United States Court of International Trade.

Dated: June 6, 2019

Neil H. Koslowe, Thomas B. Wilner, and Lisa Rainer, Shearman & Sterling LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiffs Confederación de Asociaciones Agrícolas del Estado de Sinaloa, A.C., Consejo Agrícola de Baja California, A.C., Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Asociación de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistema Producto Tomate. With them on the brief was Robert S. LaRussa.

Elizabeth A. Speck and Joshua E. Kurland, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., argued for Defendant United States. With them on the brief was Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General. Of counsel was James H. Ahrens, II, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Jonathan M. Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for The Florida Tomato Exchange. With him on the brief were Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Charles S. Levy, and James R. Cannon, Jr.

OPINION

Choe-Groves, Judge:

Plaintiffs Confederación de Asociaciones Agrícolas del Estado de Sinaloa, A.C. ("CAADES"), Consejo Agrícola de Baja California, A.C. ("CABC"), Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C. ("AMHPAC"), Asociación de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo ("APHYM"), and Sistema Producto Tomate ("SPT") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), brought this action on May 9, 2019, related to the Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") withdrawal from a suspension agreement and subsequent continuation of an antidumping duty investigation. Summons, May 9, 2019, ECF No. 1; Compl., May 9, 2019, ECF No. 2. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Preliminary Injunction ("PI") is denied.

BACKGROUND

Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation on April 18, 1996 into fresh tomatoes from Mexico to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes were, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value ("LTFV"). Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 61 Fed. Reg. 18,377 (Dep't Commerce Apr. 25, 1996). The U.S. International Trade Commission completed an investigation and issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination on May 16, 1996. Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, USITC Pub. 2967, Inv. No. 731-TA-747 (May 1996) (Preliminary), available at https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/PUB2967.pdf (last visited Jun. 6, 2019). Commerce issued an affirmative preliminary determination on October 28, 1996, finding that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico were being sold at LTFV in the United States. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,608 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 1, 1996) ("Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico Preliminary Determination").

On the same day, Commerce signed an agreement with producers, who accounted for substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, and suspended the antidumping duty investigation. See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,618 (Dep't Commerce Nov. 1, 1996).

Over the next twenty-three years, Commerce and producers of fresh tomatoes from Mexico entered into a series of agreements that suspended the 1996 antidumping duty investigation. See Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico: Termination of Suspension Agreement, Rescission of Administrative Review, and Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,858 (Dep't Commerce May 13, 2019) ("Termination of Suspension Agreement, Rescission of Administrative Review, and Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Investigation"). The most recent of these agreements entered into force on March 4, 2013. Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Investigation, 78 Fed. Reg. 14,967 (Dep't Commerce Mar. 8, 2013) ("2013 Suspension Agreement").

The 2013 Suspension Agreement provided that any party may withdraw from the Agreement upon 90 days' written notice. 2013 Suspension Agreement at 14,971. Commerce provided written notice of its intent to withdraw from the 2013 Suspension Agreement on February 6, 2019. Letter from P. Lee Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & Negotiations, Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce to Signatories to the 2013 Suspension Agreement on Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico (Feb. 6, 2019), Attachment A, May 14, 2019, ECF No. 22–1.

Commerce provided notice of its intent to continue the suspended antidumping duty investigation on May 7, 2019, which was published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2019. Termination of Suspension Agreement, Rescission of Administrative Review, and Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,858 (Dep't Commerce May 13, 2019).

Plaintiffs brought the present action and moved for a TRO and PI on May 9, 2019. Summons, May 9, 2019, ECF No. 1; Compl., May 9, 2019, ECF No. 2; Pls.' Mot. for TRO and PI Against Defendant, May 9, 2019, ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs' TRO and PI motion seeks to enjoin Commerce from (1) "ordering a suspension of the liquidation of entries of fresh tomatoes from Mexico," (2) "resuming its antidumping investigation into those tomatoes," and (3) "instructing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit or bond for each entry of those tomatoes, pending the Court's disposition of this civil action." Pls.' Mot. for TRO and PI Against Defendant, May 9, 2019, ECF No. 8; Pls.' Mem. in Support of Mot. for TRO and PI, May 9, 2019, ECF No. 9 ("Pls.' Mem."). The court expedited briefing on the TRO and PI motion and requested supplemental briefing on subject-matter jurisdiction on May 10, 2019. Order, May 10, 2019, ECF No. 13.

The Florida Tomato Exchange ("FTE") moved to intervene on May 10, 2019. Partial Consent Mot. to Intervene as a Matter of Right, May 10, 2019, ECF No. 14. The court permitted FTE to intervene as a Defendant-Intervenor under USCIT Rule 24(b). Order, May 10, 2019, ECF No. 18.

Defendant and FTE responded on May 14, 2019. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Mot. for TRO and PI, May 14, 2019, ECF No. 22 ("Def.'s Resp."); Resp. of the FTE to Pls.' Mot. for a TRO and PI, May 14, 2019, ECF No. 21 ("FTE's Resp."). Plaintiffs replied on May 15, 2019. Pls.' Mem. in Reply to Def.'s and Intervenor's Opp'ns to Pls.' Mot. for TRO and PI, May 15, 2019, ECF No. 23 ("Pls.' Reply"). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on May 15, 2019. Am. Compl., May 15, 2019, ECF No. 24 ("Am. Compl.").

The court held a TRO and PI Hearing on May 16, 2019. Hearing, May 16, 2019, ECF No. 25. Plaintiffs, Defendant, and Defendant-Intervenor provided supplemental briefing and exhibits on May 17, 2019. Pls.' Post-Hr'g Mem., May 17, 2019, ECF No. 29; Pls.' Post-Hr'g Mem., May 17, 2019, ECF No. 27; Def.'s Suppl. Br., May 17, 2019, ECF No. 28 ("Def.'s Suppl. Br."); Suppl. Br. FTE, May 17, 2019, ECF No. 26. Defendant moved to strike Plaintiffs' post-hearing briefs and Plaintiffs' supplement exhibit numbers 8 through 14 on May 20, 2019. Def.'s Mot. to Strike Portions of Pls.' Post-Hr'g Mem., or Alternatively for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Pls.' Mem., May 20, 2019, ECF No. 30. The court denied Defendant's motion to strike. Order, May 20, 2019, ECF No. 31. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum on May 28, 2019. Pls.' Emergency Supplemental Memorandum, May 28, 2019, ECF No. 33 ("Pls.' Suppl. Mem."). Defendant responded. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Emergency Suppl. Mem., May 29, 2019, ECF No. 34 ("Def.'s Suppl. Mem. Resp."). Plaintiffs replied. Pls.' Reply to Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Emergency Suppl. Mem., May 30, 2019, ECF No. 35.

DISCUSSION

I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of International Trade, like all federal courts, is one of limited jurisdiction and is "presumed to be ‘without jurisdiction’ unless ‘the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’ " DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting King Iron Bridge & Mfg. Co. v. Otoe Cty., 120 U.S. 225, 226, 7 S.Ct. 552, 30 L.Ed. 623 (1887) ). The Court is empowered to hear civil actions brought against the United States pursuant to the specific grants of jurisdiction enumerated under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a) – (i) (2012). The party invoking jurisdiction must allege sufficient facts to establish the court's jurisdiction, id. (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ), and therefore bears the burden of establishing it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).

Plaintiffs plead jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(i)(2) and (4). Am. Compl. ¶ 2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over:

any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for— ...

(2) tariffs, duties, fees or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue; ... [and]

(4) administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)–(3) of this subsection and subsections (a)–(h) of this section.

28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The court's residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) may not be invoked when jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or could have been available, unless the remedy provided under that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate. Ford Motor Co. v. United States, ...