Anderson v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Decision Date | 20 December 2006 |
Docket Number | Slip Op. 06-186. Court No. 05-00329. |
Citation | 469 F.Supp.2d 1300 |
Parties | Robert L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
On November 1, 2006, the court remanded the captioned matter for reconsideration of the defendant agency's refusal to consider Plaintiff's claim that his net income declined on an accrual basis. Anderson v. United States Sec'y of Agric., 30 CIT ___, 462 F.Supp.2d 1333 (CIT 2006).1
Citing the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") in Steen v. United States, 468 F.3d 1357 (Fed.Cir.2006), the agency refused to comply with the court's remand order. In Steen, the CAFC affirmed the application of the same agency regulation at issue here, 7 C.F.R. § 1580.102(2004), which relies on Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Schedule C in defining "net fishing income"; nonetheless, the CAFC also took pains to specify that its approval of the agency's application of its regulation applied only to Mr. Steen's claim that "his net fishing income should be calculated with respect to the imported commodity only and should not be calculated by taking into account his income from other commercial fishing activity." Id. at 1360. The CAFC went on to state: "Mr. Steen does not contend that his tax returns distort the net amount of his income derived from all fishing sources in the two relevant years...." Id. at 1364.2
Accordingly, the agency's reliance on Steen in the remand determination at issue here is inappropriate. The CAFC clearly did not intend for its opinion to be read to render the pro forma use of the net, income line from the IRS's Schedule C in accordance with law in all circumstances. On the contrary, the CAFC specifically instructed that the Steen decision did not apply to claims such as Mr. Anderson's that his tax returns distort the net amount of his income derived from all fishing sources in the two relevant years when considered on an accrual basis.
In addition, if the agency believed that Steen represented intervening contrary authority and therefore rendered the court's remand order nugatory, the proper and prudent course would have been to move for reconsideration or rehearing in accordance with. USCIT R. 59. See Union Camp Corp. v. United States, 23 CIT 264, 270, 53 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1317 (1999) (). Absent appeal, an agency is not free to disregard a court order, but rather must obey the order pending appeal. Georgetown Steel Co. v. United States, 27 CIT 550, 555-56, 259 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1348 (2003); cf. Hyundai Elecs. Indus. v. United States, 30 CIT ___, ___, 414 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1291 (2006)(in the context of a remand to the agency, after compliance with the remand order, the parties argued the intervening authority to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Former Employees v. U.S. Secretary
...of the agency's failure to comply with this and other instructions set forth in IBM I. See Anderson v. U.S. Sec'y of Agriculture, 30 CIT ___, ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1301 (2006) (ordering agency to show cause under Rule 11 for failure to comply with remand instructions in Ag-TAA F. The Rem......
-
Hacker v. United States
...misplaced. See Anderson v. United States, 462 F.Supp.2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (“ Anderson I ”); Anderson v. United States, 469 F.Supp.2d 1300 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006) (“ Anderson II ”); Anderson v. United States, 493 F.Supp.2d 1288 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007) (“ Anderson III ”). As a prelimi......
-
Anderson v. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
...In the USDA's first remand determination, the USDA refused to comply with the court's order. First Remand Determination; Anderson II, 30 CIT ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1300. In doing so, the agency cited the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") in Steen v. United S......
-
Durfey v. U.S. Sec'Y of Agr.
...use of the net income line from the IRS's Schedule C in accordance with law in all circumstances." Anderson v. United States Sec'y of Agric, 30 CIT ___, ___, 469 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1301 (2006). To hold otherwise would be to so limit the language of 7 C.F.R. § 1580.301(e)(6)(i), which allows ap......