Footwear Distributors and Retailers v. US, Court No. 85-04-00581. Slip Op. No. 94-77.
Decision Date | 10 May 1994 |
Docket Number | Court No. 85-04-00581. Slip Op. No. 94-77. |
Citation | 852 F. Supp. 1078 |
Parties | FOOTWEAR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS OF AMERICA, f/k/a Footwear Retailers of America, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Footwear Industries of America, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon, Washington, DC (Michael P. Daniels, N. David Palmeter and Gregory J. Spak), for plaintiff Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.
Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC (Herbert C. Shelley and Joel D. Kaufman), for plaintiff Special Commodity Group of Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil, American Ass'n of Exporters and Importers.
Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen.; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice (Velta A. Melnbrencis); and Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC (Lisa Koteen and Joan L. MacKenzie), of counsel, for defendant.
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Washington, DC (Lauren R. Howard), for intervenor-defendant.
Given the decision of an international panel that the United States acted inconsistently with Article I:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and U.S. acquiesence in that decision in favor of Brazil, the parties return to this action to finally dispose of issues arising from the time of creation of this Court of International Trade, which is an extension of the great American experiment in judicial review of prerogatives of the sovereign that began with Chief Justice John Marshall's nascent pronouncements that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), and "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains", Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804). These principles remain of the essence in this action on the advent of the new World Trade Organization in furtherance of the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations to which the United States claims commitment.
After joinder of issue, the plaintiffs interposed motions for judgment on the record compiled by the ITA in rendering this determination. Plaintiff Footwear's proposed order in conjunction therewith, for example, would declare it null and void and decree that the covered merchandise from Brazil entered on or after January 4, 1980 and exported from that country before December 31, 1980 be liquidated with no assessment of countervailing duties and refund of any such duties previously deposited.
While those motions were pending, plaintiff Footwear notified this court that the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures organized under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") had agreed to a request by Brazil to convene a three-member panel to consider whether imposition of countervailing duties as determined above violated the obligations of the United States under its Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of GATT, the so-called "Subsidies Code", done April 12, 1979, 31 U.S.T. 513, T.I.A.S. No. 9619, and also that the U.S. government had consented to such a panel. The plaintiff1 moved for a stay of proceedings, arguing, among other things, that an interpretation of that code by the panel would either resolve, or contribute to resolution of, the issues herein. The stay was granted, but plaintiff's prediction did not prove true.
GATT article VI:6(a) provides that no contracting party shall levy any antidumping or countervailing duty on a product from another contracting party unless the former determines that the effect of the dumping or subsidization causes or threatens to cause material injury to an established domestic industry, or retards materially the establishment of a domestic industry. Article 1 of the Subsidies Code governs application in general of this provision, while article 4 addresses actual imposition of countervailing duties, e.g.:
It delved into the history of the disagreement which is appropriate to recite at length now, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earth Island Institute v. Christopher
...(emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). 37 Supra note 18. 38 Supra note 3. 39 See generally Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America v. United States, 18 CIT ___, 852 F.Supp. 1078 (1994). 40 In view of the nature of this interim relief, that part of the government's motion for summ......
-
Corus Staal Bv v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
...Hyundai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 23 CIT 302, 311, 53 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1343 (1999); Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America v. United States, 18 CIT 391, 852 F.Supp. 1078 (1994). The SAA provides that "[r]eports issued by panels or the Appellate Body under the [WTO Dispute Set......
-
Almond Bros. Lumber Co. v. United States
...as a mutually-satisfactory means of achieving the ends of the foreign trade policy. See Footwear Distribs. & Retailers of Am. v. United States, 18 CIT 391, 414, 852 F. Supp. 1078, 1096 (1994) ("[C]ourts traditionally refrain from disturbing 'the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of......
-
Hyundai Electronics Co., Ltd. v. U.S.
...at *141-42. As an initial matter, the WTO report itself has no binding effect on the court. In Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America v. United States, 18 CIT 391, 852 F.Supp. 1078 (1994), the court was confronted with a claim that an adopted GATT panel decision should govern the ou......
-
Mahoney v. RFE/RFL: an unexpected direction for the foreign laws defense.
...to directing the United States as to how to proceed on the international stage." Footwear Distrib, and Retailers v. United States, 852 F. Supp. 1078, 1095 (Ct. Intl Trade 1994). The court also noted that while "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our Government is committed by the Con......