Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. U.S., No. 89-1748

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore MAYER, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN and FRIEDMAN; FRIEDMAN
Citation903 F.2d 1555
PartiesThe ASOCIACION COLOMBIANA de EXPORTADORES de FLORES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Association of Floral Importers of Florida; Riverdale Farms, Inc.; Grupo Andes; and Flores Funca, Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, and Floral Trade Council of Davis, California, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 89-1748
Decision Date16 May 1990

Page 1555

903 F.2d 1555
12 ITRD 1216
The ASOCIACION COLOMBIANA de EXPORTADORES de FLORES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Association of Floral Importers of Florida; Riverdale
Farms, Inc.; Grupo Andes; and Flores Funca, Plaintiffs,
v.
The UNITED STATES, and Floral Trade Council of Davis,
California, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-1748.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
May 16, 1990.

Patrick F.J. Macrory, Arnold & Porter, of Washington, D.C., argued, for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were, Spencer S. Griffith and Gwyn F. Murray.

Jeanne E. Davidson, Atty., Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, of

Page 1556

Washington, D.C., argued, for defendants-appellees, The U.S. With her on the brief were, Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director. Also on the brief were, Wendell L. Willkie, II, Gen. Counsel, Stephen J. Powell, Chief Counsel for Import Admin. and Anne White, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, of counsel. James R. Cannon, Jr., Stewart & Stewart, of Washington, D.C., argued, for defendants-appellees, Floral Trade Council of Davis, Cal. With him on the brief were, Eugene L. Stewart, Terence P. Stewart and Jimmie V. Reyna.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN and FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from (1) a decision of the Court of International Trade refusing to enjoin the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce (Administration) from conducting an annual administrative review in a dumping case, and (2) the judgment of that court dismissing the action that challenged the Administration's institution of that review. We affirm.

I

A. In March 1987, in response to a petition filed by the appellee Floral Trade Council of Davis, California (Council), an association of United States flower growers, the Administration held that sales of certain imported flowers from Colombia were being made at less than fair value and imposed antidumping duties. Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 52 Fed.Reg. 6842 (Dep't Comm.1987). The Administration found that the dumping margins ranged from .057 percent to 83.14 percent.

The statute provides that, at least once during each 12-month period following the publication of an antidumping order, the Administration shall "review, and determine ... the amount of any antidumping duty" "if a request for such a review has been received." 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(a)(1)(B) (1988). By regulation, the Administration has stated that "an interested person"

may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review of specified individual manufacturers, producers, or exporters ("producers or exporters") covered by the order or finding, if the requesting person states why the person desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters....

19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.53a(a)(1) (1987) (recodified at 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.22(a)(1) (1989) with minor changes).

B. In March 1988, the Council requested an administrative review of sales during the preceding 12 months by six named Colombian exporters and of sales to 24 designated importers and brokers of Colombian flowers. The Administration instituted a review of the sales by the six exporters. It declined to investigate the 24 importers and brokers, however, on the ground that the regulation covered only "manufacturers, producers, or exporters" and not importers or brokers. The Administration subsequently rejected as untimely a request by the Council for an alternative investigation of "all Colombian growers."

The Court of International Trade upheld the Administration's refusal to investigate either the importers and brokers or "all Colombian growers." Floral Trade Council v. United States, 692 F.Supp. 1387 (Ct.Int'l Tr.), after remand, 707 F.Supp. 1343 (Ct. Int'l Tr.1989). This court affirmed the Court of International Trade, upholding the Administration's rulings that (1) the regulations do not provide for investigation of importers and purchasers and (2) the request to investigate "all Colombian growers" was untimely. Floral Trade Council of Davis, Cal. v. United States, 888 F.2d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.1989).

C. In March 1989, the Council requested the Administration to conduct another administrative review for the 12 preceding months. Letter of Eugene L. Stewart, Stewart & Stewart, for Council, to Robert Mosbacher, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, dated Mar. 29, 1989 (Request for Sec. 751

Page 1557

Administrative Review) [hereinafter Council Letter]. It stated that "[d]espite the presence of the dumping order, widespread dumping of fresh cut flowers imports has continued in the U.S. market." It attached as a confidential exhibit "[e]vidence of sales of standard carnations and pompon chrysanthemums at severely discounted prices made during the period of this requested review...." Id. at 1.

The Council requested the Administration to review seven named "Colombian companies" that "were respondents in the original antidumping duty investigation and were determined to have been dumping on the U.S. market." Id. at 2. The Council also named 10 importers and 21 brokers who "are placing on the U.S. market low priced products." Id. It stated that the "suppliers of these importers, therefore, are among the Colombian producers most likely to be dumping" but that the Council "cannot identify the suppliers of these importers." Id.

The Council requested that the Administration review 170 named "Colombian growers." The Council stated that it believed that "some or all" of those growers "are suppliers of the specific importers known to be selling imported fresh-cut flowers." Id. at 4. The Council also listed 34 additional "Colombian exporters" to be investigated, who had "been identified, but not verified, as exporters (1) that did not export flowers subject to the investigation, or (2) that were listed as exporters of the subject flowers, but for whom no export statistics are available. Exports of the flowers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Dofasco Inc. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 04-16. Court No. 03-00819.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • February 23, 2004
    ...see also generally, e.g., Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990); Carnation Enters. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 13 CIT 604, 719 F.Supp. 1084 (1989) (original antidumping duty order invalidated ......
  • Tianjin Magnesium Intern. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-1. Court No. 07-00427.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 8, 2008
    ...Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores (Asocoflores) v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, 903 F.2d 1555 Page 1337 Moreover, TMI does not dispute that — if a timely objection is filed — Commerce is required to deny a request far deferral. See 19 C.F.R. ......
  • NAT. CUSTOMS BROKERS & FORWARDERS ASS'N v. US, Slip Op. 94-129. Court No. 94-07-00423.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 16, 1994
    ...See Association Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores (Asocoflores) v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd, 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990). See also Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961, 963 (Fed.Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1041, 108 S.Ct. 773, 98 L.Ed.2d 859......
  • International Custom Products, Inc. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 05-71.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 15, 2005
    ...1343 (quoting Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 584, Page 1321 586, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd, 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990)). In Dofasco, the plaintiff's action would be moot by the time the administrative review was complete. Id. The court stated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Dofasco Inc. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 04-16. Court No. 03-00819.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • February 23, 2004
    ...see also generally, e.g., Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990); Carnation Enters. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 13 CIT 604, 719 F.Supp. 1084 (1989) (original antidumping duty order invalidated ......
  • Tianjin Magnesium Intern. Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Slip Op. 08-1. Court No. 07-00427.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 8, 2008
    ...Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores (Asocoflores) v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd on other grounds, 903 F.2d 1555 Page 1337 Moreover, TMI does not dispute that — if a timely objection is filed — Commerce is required to deny a request far deferral. See 19 C.F.R. ......
  • NAT. CUSTOMS BROKERS & FORWARDERS ASS'N v. US, Slip Op. 94-129. Court No. 94-07-00423.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 16, 1994
    ...See Association Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores (Asocoflores) v. United States, 13 CIT 584, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd, 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990). See also Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961, 963 (Fed.Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1041, 108 S.Ct. 773, 98 L.Ed.2d 859......
  • International Custom Products, Inc. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 05-71.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 15, 2005
    ...1343 (quoting Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 584, Page 1321 586, 717 F.Supp. 847 (1989), aff'd, 903 F.2d 1555 (Fed.Cir.1990)). In Dofasco, the plaintiff's action would be moot by the time the administrative review was complete. Id. The court stated ......
  • 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