CAFC Extends Stay in Case on Withdrawal From AD Suspension Agreement
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 extended a stay in an antidumping duty case after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit. Judge Timothy Dyk noted that the parties told the court that, if no party files an appeal in the related case, the present case before CAFC will be withdrawn. As a result, Dyk extended the stay and said the parties have until seven days after June 16 to tell the court how they plan to proceed (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
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.
In the related case, the trade court said it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear claims from a group of importers that the Commerce Department failed to find a changed circumstance or to open new shipper reviews in an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes covering entries during 1995-96 (see 2504170035).
The AD investigation at issue was opened in 1996 but then subject to a series of suspension agreements negotiated between Commerce and the Mexican government. After the agency withdrew from a 2013 suspension deal, Commerce reopened the investigation in 2019 despite entering into another suspension agreement that year. Last month, Commerce said it is withdrawing from the 2019 suspension agreement and will be issuing an AD order on Mexican tomatoes (see 2504150057), based on the margins calculated on remand in the CIT case.
The CAFC case, brought by the same companies, concerns the trade court's dismissal of all but one of the companies' claims against the AD investigation (see 2306300054). The claim concerned Commerce's withdrawal from a previous suspension agreement and claimed jurisdiction under Section 1581(i). While the trade court said it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the appellate court already dismissed the challenge on substantive grounds (see 2305010071).