ITC Files for Mandamus Relief at CAFC Over Trade Court's Treatment of BPI
The International Trade Commission filed a petition for writ of mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a recent Court of International Trade decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057) (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
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.
The ITC asked the Federal Circuit to order CIT to retain the commission's designation of information as business proprietary information unless the submitting party consents to disclosure. The commission also asked the appellate court to vacate CIT Judge Stephen Vaden's decision in which the judge ordered the ITC to "disregard its designation of certain company-specific business information as business proprietary."
In March, the trade court held that the ITC's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire submissions is not in line with "statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense." In so doing, Vaden affirmed the trade court's power to redact information designated as confidential by the commission and instructed the ITC to publicly release information the court found was either not confidential or would not cause harm to the submitting party.
The ITC filed for mandamus relief in response, first noting a parallel case currently before the Federal Circuit, also on the commission's treatment of BPI. In that case, CVB v. U.S., Vaden rejected a request to redact certain information the court made public in a decision on an injury determination (see 2401090046). The ITC said the briefing from both itself and attorneys practicing before the commission "reflects the unified position" of the ITC and "the broad swaths of the private bar" that the trade court's release of BPI "was contrary to law."
The ITC argued that Vaden's release of the information was contrary to the statutory scheme and would greatly harm the commission's ability to collect sensitive information from private parties going forward. The commission said mandamus relief is needed now, because if the trade court sua sponte publicly releases BPI as it did in CVB, "the resulting harm to the owners of the information will already have occurred and cannot be corrected."
The commission added that the issue "directly affects the Commission’s ability to gather candid and complete information." The brief said that "if the court orders a remand, parties may be less forthcoming when responding to any subsequent questionnaires for fear that it will not be treated as BPI."
In a more general sense, the release of BPI here "would also harm the integrity of the Commission’s performance of its statutory duties," the commission said. Since the ITC's investigations "involve obtaining, vetting, and analyzing large quantities of sensitive company specific information for entire industries under tight statutory deadlines, the Commission necessarily depends upon the willingness of parties to cooperate and to provide BPI information." Thus, the trade court's rulings "create uncertainty with respect to the Commission’s ability to safeguard proprietary information," which will chill cooperation.
"Thus, given the likelihood that the CIT imminently will issue its merits decision and release BPI therein, immediate intervention by this Court is required," the ITC said.