CIT Ruling Over Motion to Toss Alternate Jurisdiction Relevant for AD Case, Plaintiffs Argue
A recent Court of International Trade decision in Goodluck India v. U.S. is relevant in a case on the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico conducted after a suspension agreement was terminated, plaintiffs in another case, led by Bioparques de Occidente, claimed in a Dec. 14 notice of supplemental authority. In Goodluck, the trade court said that the U.S. cannot dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2212010024). Bioparques' case presents a similar scenario, the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"As the Court is aware, the present case involves three consolidated actions that raise identical claims under alternate theories of jurisdiction," the brief said. "All Parties agree that there is jurisdiction to hear" the claims "under one statutory provision or another. Consequently, under the logic of the Goodluck India decision, there is no basis to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."