CIT Should Dismiss Case Over AD/CVD Scope Request Given Recent Commerce Ruling, Agency Says

A recent Commerce Department scope ruling nullifies importer Valeo North America's case at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in its Nov. 1 motion to dismiss. Seeing as Valeo sought for the court to compel Commerce to issue a final decision on its scope determination, the case is no longer necessary since Commerce actually made the scope decision. Further, CIT doesn't have jurisdiction over the case as Valeo claims, as jurisdiction now rests under a different portion of the law, given Commerce's final agency action, the motion said (Valeo North America v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

Valeo requested a scope ruling to see if its clad T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the antidumping and countervailing duties on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. After being denied for the review three times for failing to meet the requirements for initiating a scope ruling, Valeo filed its case at CIT. While litigation got under way in that case, Commerce then finally ruled on the scope ruling request, finding that Valeo's T-series sheet falls within the scope of the order (see 2110200017).

"The Court should dismiss Valeo’s complaint because it is moot and the Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction," DOJ said. "The true nature of Valeo’s complaint is to compel Commerce to issue a final scope ruling or to initiate a formal scope inquiry with respect to Valeo’s March 24, 2021 scope request. On October 15, 2021, Commerce issued and sent to the parties a final scope ruling pursuant to § 351.225(d) of Commerce’s regulations, which constitutes final agency action in the administrative scope proceeding. That final action by Commerce rendered Valeo’s complaint moot, and as a result, the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction."

Valeo launched its case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. However, jurisdiction under this portion of the law can only be claimed if other remedies are inadequate. Since Commerce has now issued its final decision in the scope ruling, Valeo can seek to challenge the decision under Section 1581(c) jurisdiction, meant for antidumping duty decisions. Regardless of whether that happens, the court should dismiss this case since it is filed under the wrong jurisdiction, Commerce said.

"Now that Commerce has issued and sent its final scope ruling determination as to whether the product imported by Valeo is within the class or kind of merchandise described in the orders, Valeo may pursue claims related to the final scope ruling properly invoking the Court’s § 1581(c) jurisdiction," the motion said.