Cambridge Lee Industries, Inc. v. U.S., AFL-CIO

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtFRIEDMAN
Citation916 F.2d 1578
PartiesCAMBRIDGE LEE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and American Brass, Chase Brass & Copper Company, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin Corporation-Brass Group, Revere Copper Products, Inc., International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America (), Mechanics Educational Society of America (Local 56), and The United Steelworkers of America (/CLC), Defendants-Appellees.
Decision Date18 October 1990
Docket NumberNo. 90-1044,AFL-CIO

Page 1578

916 F.2d 1578
12 ITRD 1950
CAMBRIDGE LEE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee,
and
American Brass, Chase Brass & Copper Company, Hussey Copper,
Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin Corporation-Brass Group,
Revere Copper Products, Inc., International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied
Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics
Educational Society of America (Local 56), and The United
Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-1044.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
Oct. 18, 1990.

Gail T. Cummins, Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C., New York City, argued, for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief, were Beatrice A. Brickall and Ned H. Marshak.

M. Martha Ries, Atty., Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington,

Page 1579

D.C., argued, for defendant-appellee. 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, General Counsel, Stephen J. Powell, Chief Counsel for Import Admin. and Tanya J. Potter, Atty.-Advisor, Office of Deputy Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, of counsel.

Jeffrey S. Beckington, Collier, Shannon & Scott, Washington, D.C., argued, for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief, were David A. Hartquist and Kathleen Weaver Cannon.

Before MARKEY, * Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BROWN, ** District Judge.

FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade denying a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of entries of merchandise covered by an antidumping order that the party seeking the injunction challenged in that court. The Court of International Trade held that the party's failure to seek an annual administrative review of the antidumping order barred the party from obtaining an injunction. The appellant challenges the latter ruling. We hold, however, that developments in the case since the appeal was argued here have made the case moot. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

I

Because of our disposition of this case, only a brief description of the statutory background and the facts is necessary.

A. The imposition of antidumping duties is based upon (1) a determination by the International Trade Administration (Administration) in the Department of Commerce that foreign goods are being sold in the United States at less than fair value, i.e., being dumped, and (2) a determination by the International Trade Commission (Commission) that such sales injure a United States industry. Following those determinations, the Administration publishes an antidumping duty order specifying the amount of antidumping duties.

Importers are required to "deposit ... estimated antidumping duties pending liquidation of entries of merchandise...." 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673e(a)(3) (1988). These entries of merchandise "shall be liquidated in accordance with the determination of the [Administration] or the Commission," "[u]nless such liquidation is enjoined by the court...." 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(c)(1) (1988). Once an entry has been liquidated, the duties paid cannot be recovered even if the payor subsequently prevails in its challenge to the antidumping order. Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809-10 (Fed.Cir.1983).

Twelve months after the original antidumping order, the Administration must "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). This latter review is called the annual review. A Department of Commerce regulation provides that if no request for an annual review has been made, all entries during the annual review period will be liquidated "at rates equal to the cash deposit of, or bond for, estimated antidumping duties." 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.22(e) (1990).

B. Following the Administration's final determination that brass sheet and strip from Japan had been sold in the United States at less than fair value, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan, 53 Fed.Reg. 23,296 (Admin. June 21, 1988), and the Commission's final determination of material injury or threat thereof to a United States industry, Certain Brass Sheet and Strip From Japan and the Netherlands, 53 Fed.Reg. 29,394 (Comm'n Aug. 4, 1988), the Administration on August 12, 1988 published an antidumping duty order which required a cash deposit of "estimated antidumping duties" on all subsequent

Page 1580

entries. Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Brass Sheet and Strip From Japan, 53 Fed.Reg. 30,454 (Admin. Aug. 12, 1988).

The appellant Cambridge Lee Industries, Inc. (Cambridge Lee), an importer of the merchandise involved, filed suit in the Court of International Trade in October 1988, challenging the Commission's determination that the dumping injured an American industry. It did not challenge the Administration's determination that the merchandise was sold at less than fair value in the United States.

While proceedings on Cambridge Lee's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record were pending before the Court of International Trade, the anniversary date of the antidumping duty order occurred on August 7, 1989. On that date, the Administration published a notice in the Federal Register that within 30...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-43.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 4 Abril 2006
    ...initial estimate. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(ii); see also 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(3), 1673e(c)(3); Cambridge Lee Indus. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1990). This final determination is implemented in the antidumping duty order. See Am. Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at As mentioned, th......
  • Human Society of U.S. v. Clinton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 4 Enero 2001
    ...be too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.'" Id.(quoting Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). "Second, there must be 'reasonable likelihood' that the party 'will again suffer the injury that gave rise to the suit.'......
  • Ad Hoc Committee of Florida v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-131.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 11 Septiembre 1998
    ..."to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration." Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 9 Fed. Cir. (T) 28, 32, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (1990) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Second, there must be "a `reasonable likelih......
  • Torrington Co. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 13 Enero 1995
    ..."in its duration [be] too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration." Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1990) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Second, there must be "a 'reasonab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-43.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 4 Abril 2006
    ...initial estimate. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(ii); see also 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673e(a)(3), 1673e(c)(3); Cambridge Lee Indus. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1990). This final determination is implemented in the antidumping duty order. See Am. Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at As mentioned, th......
  • Human Society of U.S. v. Clinton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 4 Enero 2001
    ...be too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration.'" Id.(quoting Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). "Second, there must be 'reasonable likelihood' that the party 'will again suffer the injury that gave rise to the suit.'......
  • Ad Hoc Committee of Florida v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-131.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 11 Septiembre 1998
    ..."to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration." Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 9 Fed. Cir. (T) 28, 32, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (1990) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Second, there must be "a `reasonable likelih......
  • Torrington Co. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 13 Enero 1995
    ..."in its duration [be] too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration." Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc. v. United States, 916 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1990) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Second, there must be "a 'reasonab......
  • 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