Fuji Elec. Co., Ltd. v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 83-7-00965. |
| Citation | 7 CIT 247,595 F. Supp. 1152 |
| Parties | FUJI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Memorandum To Accompany Order
Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Hitachi, has moved pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Rules of this Court for leave to intervene as party plaintiffs and file a proposed complaint attached to its motion. The proposed intervenor urges it has an unconditional right to intervene under the provisions of Section 516(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1516(a) since it was an interested party who participated in the administrative proceeding.
Plaintiff, Westinghouse Electric Corp., and defendant, the United States, have filed partial opposition, not to the intervention but to paragraphs III, IV, V and VI of the complaint. The opposition is based upon the fact that said paragraphs set forth claims not covered by the original complaint and hence beyond the scope of this proceeding. Although Hitachi could have been a party to the action by the timely filing of a summons and complaint, it chose to participate in this action as an intervenor.
These consolidated actions are the result of a determination on June 8, 1983 by the International Trade Administration ("ITA") of the Department of Commerce covering an antidumping review of large transformers from Japan, 48 Fed.Reg. 26498. The determinations were made pursuant to Section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. § 1675. The findings of its review related to exports of Fuji Electric Co., Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., and Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. and covered entries of merchandise through June 30, 1980.
After the results were published in the Federal Register several interested parties commenced actions in this Court. Fuji Electric Corporation of America (hereinafter referred to as Fuji), on July 7, 1983, filed a summons in Court No. 83-7-00965. A complaint was thereafter filed on August 5, 1983.
On July 7, 1983 Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba International Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Toshiba) filed a summons in Court No. 83-7-00980. The complaint to its action was filed on August 5, 1983.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a domestic producer of power transformers and shunt reactors instituted this antidumping proceeding and filed its summons in Court No. 83-7-00981 on July 8, 1983 and its complaint on August 8, 1983.
Inasmuch as the three actions involve similar questions of law and fact, defendant moved for consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a), which was granted on September 8, 1983. Defendant has answered the complaints in each of these actions.
On January 20, 1984 Hitachi filed the present motion for leave to intervene in these consolidated actions. Hitachi based its right to appear as an intervenor since it was a party to the administrative proceeding. Attached to its motion Hitachi filed a nine-paragraph complaint, including five claims which raise matters not previously set forth in the pleadings filed in these consolidated actions.
The five claims involved challenge the following:
(1) The ITA's decision to utilize postdated home market sales for comparison with sales to the United States.
(2) The ITA's determination that a home market sale may be properly dated from date of the "letter of intent" pertaining to the sale.
(3) The ITA's calculation of packing cost adjustments.
(4) The ITA's holding that shunt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ArcelorMittal USA LLC v. United States
...parties therein,’ and cannot use the right of intervention to impose claims otherwise inappropriate.") (quoting Fuji Elec. Co. v. United States , 595 F.Supp. 1152, 1154 (1984) ).The Government notes that ArcelorMittal challenged the rate that Commerce assigned to Severstal as AFA under the ......
-
Alhambra Foundry Co., Ltd. v. US
...499, 504-05 (1987); Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT ____, 633 F.Supp. 1376, 1380 (1986); Fuji Elec. Co. v. United States, 7 CIT 247, 595 F.Supp. 1152, appeal dismissed, No. 84-1639 (Fed.Cir.1984); Nakajima All Co. v. United States, 2 CIT 170 (1981) available on WESTLA......
- United States ex rel. Stanbridge v. Quinlan
-
Timken Co. v. US, Court No. 90-06-00307.
...263, 633 F.Supp. 1376 (1986); cf. Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 1, 600 F.Supp. 852 (1985); Fuji Elec. Co. v. United States, 7 CIT 247, 595 F.Supp. 1152 (1984). Indeed, the court has "consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction over a challenge to a Commerce determinatio......