Crawfish, Bearings Makers Fail in Byrd Funds Bid

In a consolidation of multiple cases, eight domestic producers of crawfish tail meat, together with tapered roller bearings producer Koyo Corporation of U.S.A and antifriction bearings producer SKF USA, Inc., challenged the constitutionality of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA, or Byrd Amendment), and the administration of that statute by the International Trade Commission and Customs and Border Protection. Because they had not supported the petitions leading to the AD orders on crawfish tail meat or antifriction bearings, the companies were not included on the ITC’s lists of “affected domestic producers” (ADPs). Among other claims, they argued that the petition support requirement violated their First Amendment free speech, Fifth Amendment equal protection, and Fifth Amendment due process rights.

In separate claims, the crawfish tail meat producers argued that the petition support requirement was an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it penalized domestic producers for free speech actions taken prior to the enactment of the CDSOA; SKF and Koyo sought a preliminary injunction against the disbursement of CDSOA funds from the AD order on ball bearings and taper for fiscal years 2006 through 2010; SKF argued that court decisions on ADP status claims should apply to all contested fiscal years; and Koyo sought to amend its complaint to include the argument that defendant-intervenors the Timken Corporation and MPB Corporation have been unjustly enriched by virtue of receiving CDSOA distributions belonging in part to Koyo USA.

The CIT dismissed each of the constitutional rights claims as well as the separate complaints and motions, basing its opinion primarily on rulings on similar claims handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (CAFC, 556 F. 3d 1337, 2009).

Regarding particular claims by SKF seeking CDSOA duties for the 2004 fiscal year and another by Koyo for the 2006 fiscal year, the court ruled that both claims were untimely, reasoning that the two-year statute of limitations limiting such claims commenced on the date of the publication by CBP of the list of potential ADPs for the relevant fiscal years.

Pat Huval Restaurant & Oyster Bar, Inc. et al v. U.S., Slip Op. 12-27, dated 03/01/12, Judges Carman, Sanceu, and Gordon