991 F.Supp.2d 1339 (CIT 2014), 13-00388, Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court 13-00388
Citation:991 F.Supp.2d 1339
Opinion Judge:Carman, JUDGE:
Party Name:ZHANJIANG GUOLIAN AQUATIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant and COALITION OF GULF SHRIMP INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Intervenor
Attorney:Court No. 13-00388 Robert G. Gosselink and Jonathan M. Freed, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Robin Lynn Turner, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, for Defendant. With her on the brief were Dominic L. Bi...
Judge Panel:Before: Gregory W. Carman, Judge.
Case Date:June 26, 2014
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 1339

991 F.Supp.2d 1339 (CIT 2014)

ZHANJIANG GUOLIAN AQUATIC PRODUCTS CO., LTD., Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

and

COALITION OF GULF SHRIMP INDUSTRIES, Defendant-Intervenor

Court No. 13-00388

United States Court of International Trade

June 26, 2014

Defendant-Intervenor's motion to dismiss is granted.

Robert G. Gosselink and Jonathan M. Freed, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Robin Lynn Turner, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, for Defendant. With her on the brief were Dominic L. Bianchi, General Counsel, and Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel.

Terence P. Stewart, Elizabeth J. Drake, and Jennifer M. Smith, Stewart and Stewart, of Washington, DC, and Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, of New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Intervenor.

Before: Gregory W. Carman, Judge.

OPINION

Page 1340

OPINION & ORDER

Carman, JUDGE:

Before the Court is Defendant-Intervenor Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries' (" Defendant-Intervenor" or " COGSI" ) Motion to Dismiss (" MTD" ) (ECF No. 16) for lack of case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution and accordingly

Page 1341

lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this court. Defendant the United States supports COGSI's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 20. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant-Intervenor's motion to dismiss.

Background

This action is one of many challenging the final negative countervailing duty (" CVD" ) determination of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from various countries. See Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From China, Ecuador, India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, 78 Fed. Reg. 64,009 (Int'l Trade Comm'n Oct. 25, 2013) (final determination). The International Trade Commission (" ITC" )'s final determination was that the domestic industry " was not injured by reason of imports." Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.-Int.'s Mot. to Dismiss (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ) at 3. In its preliminary determination, the ITC " concluded that negligibility was not an issue in the investigations because the subject imports from all countries investigated were not negligible." Compl. ¶ 7 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff argued to the agency that the ITC's negligibility conclusion was not accurate for imports from China because the ITC used data that " included imports of nonsubject merchandise." Compl. ¶ 9. The ITC continued to find Plaintiff's imports non-negligible in its final determination. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff prays for a declaration that the ITC's conclusion " on negligibility with respect to China" is erroneous and requests a remand to the ITC regarding negligibility. Compl. ¶ 15.

Defendant-Intervenor COGSI moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because " [t]he ITC determined the U.S. industry was not injured, and thus no countervailing duty order issued as a result of the ITC's determination." MTD at 2. Defendant-Intervenor argues that Plaintiff " suffered no harm and has no standing, and the Court has no jurisdiction since there exists no true case or controversy." MTD at 3. Defendant-Intervenor points out that " [s]tanding is one of the essential elements of the case-or-controversy requirement" and " [u]nder the United States Constitution, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to actual cases or controversies." Id. at 2 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, Defendant-Intervenor asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's case. Id. at 4.

In a parallel case challenging ITC's final injury determination, Plaintiff is the defendant-intervenor and Defendant-Intervenor is the plaintiff. See COGSI v. United States, Ct. No. 13-00386 (CIT filed Nov. 22, 2013).1

Jurisdiction

Plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that jurisdiction lies. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). In this action, Plaintiff claims jurisdiction is proper pursuant to section 516A(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (" the Act" ), codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff brings its claim under the propositions that it already suffered injury " during the provisional measure period" and may " suffer future harm if defendant-intervenor COGSI is successful in its separate appeal" of the ITC's final negative injury CVD determination. Pl.'s Opp'n at 6.

Page 1342

Discussion

Jurisdiction is at the heart of this action. The jurisdiction of federal courts is constitutionally limited to actions that involve actual cases or controversies. Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 978 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1332-33 (2014) (" Royal Thai " )2 ( citing Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
11 practice notes
  • A review of the Court of International Trade's 2014 decisions addressing trade remedy determinations of the U.S. International Trade Commission.
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of International Law Vol. 47 Nbr. 1, September 2015
    • 22 Septiembre 2015
    ...See id. at 24 n.103. (245.) Id. at 26. (246.) Id. at 27. (247.) Id. (248.) Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prods. Co. v. United States, 991 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1340-41 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014). (249.) Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from China, Ecuador, India, Malay., and Viet., Inv. Nos. 701-TA-491-493, 495......
  • Arcelormittal USA LLC v. United States, 042517 USCIT, 16-00168
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 25 Abril 2017
    ...case or controversy, and thus no jurisdiction lies. Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prod. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT__, __, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai, 978 F.Supp.2d at 1333); see Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT 801, 802-03, 751 F.Sup......
  • PAO Severstal v. United States, 042517 USCIT, 16-00172
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 25 Abril 2017
    ...case or controversy, and thus no jurisdiction lies. Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prod. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT__, __, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai, 978 F.Supp. 2d. at 1333); see Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT 801, 802-03, 751 F.S......
  • Building Systems de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 110320 USCIT, 20-00069
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 3 Noviembre 2020
    ...(holding a prevailing party lacks standing to sue); Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prods. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT,, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 38 CIT___, ___, 978 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1333 (2014)); Jubail Energy Servs. Co. ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
10 cases
  • Arcelormittal USA LLC v. United States, 042517 USCIT, 16-00168
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 25 Abril 2017
    ...case or controversy, and thus no jurisdiction lies. Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prod. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT__, __, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai, 978 F.Supp.2d at 1333); see Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT 801, 802-03, 751 F.Sup......
  • PAO Severstal v. United States, 042517 USCIT, 16-00172
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 25 Abril 2017
    ...case or controversy, and thus no jurisdiction lies. Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prod. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT__, __, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai, 978 F.Supp. 2d. at 1333); see Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT 801, 802-03, 751 F.S......
  • Building Systems de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 110320 USCIT, 20-00069
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of International Trade
    • 3 Noviembre 2020
    ...(holding a prevailing party lacks standing to sue); Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prods. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT,, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1342 (2014) (citing Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 38 CIT___, ___, 978 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1333 (2014)); Jubail Energy Servs. Co. ......
  • Camara Nacional De Las Industrias Azucarera Y Alcoholera v. United States, 101615 USCIT, 15-00123
    • United States
    • Federal Cases Court of Appeals of International Trade
    • 16 Octubre 2015
    ...determination in which it prevailed on the merits. See, e.g., Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Prods. Co. v. United States, 38 CIT ___, 991 F.Supp.2d 1339 (2014); Royal Thai Gov't v. United States, 38 CIT at ___, 978 F.Supp.2d 1330 (2014); Rose Bearings Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT 801, 751 F.Sup......
  • Free signup to view additional results
1 books & journal articles