Exporter Says US Industry Has No Right to Intervene in Suit on Forced Labor Finding
Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
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.
CBP said last year that Kingtom was using forced labor in a factory in the Dominican Republic to make its aluminum extrusions, blocking shipments from the company from entering the U.S. (see 2412030017). The present suit followed in which Kingtom alleges that the agency's decision wasn't backed by sufficient evidence or explanation (see 2412260036).
Kingtom now seeks to ward off intervention in the suit by the Aluminum Extruders Council and USW, first arguing that the would-be intervenors won't be aggrieved by the outcome of the case. The exporter said it's the one facing the "loss of all its U.S. sales -- and potential bankruptcy," should the forced labor finding be upheld, and not the proposed intervenors.
The exporter said the petitioners' claims to economic injury "are patently false, devoid of legal support" and "misstate the potential economic consequences of this case," in light of the International Trade Commission's finding that shipments of aluminum extrusions from the Dominican Republic are negligible and don't injure the U.S. industry. Kingtom argued that the proposed intervenors don't have an "unfettered right to block Kingtom’s fairly traded imports," adding that "having to compete in the marketplace against Kingtom is not to the detriment of any legitimate competitive position."
Kingtom added that the petitioners have no "conditional right to intervene," which the parties claimed because they have an interest in ensuring the U.S. is "effectuating" all provisions of a free trade agreement. To this, the exporter argued that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly held that a 'generally available grievance' about the government's application of a law does not give rise to a redressable injury.'"
The exporter also said that intervention by the U.S. industry groups would "unduly delay the action" and "prejudice" Kingtom's claims. The trade court has previously noted that additional parties "always add additional time, effort, and expense." The exporter said this is time that it "quite frankly, does not have."
The forced labor finding "is causing and will continue to cause Kingtom extraordinary hardship, including loss of business opportunity, goodwill, and reputation with existing and prospective customers, and is also likely to result in Kingtom having to enter bankruptcy," the brief said.