Indian Exporter Consents to Partial Motion to Dismiss AD Case, Fights Gov't Statement of Facts

While antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited does not oppose DOJ's motion to partially dismiss its case, it wants the Court of International Trade to find jurisdiction for its case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Responding to the partial dismissal motion in an April 22 reply brief, Goodluck used the opportunity to also characterize the U.S. government's statement of facts as "inaccurate" (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).

The case was filed to contest the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties on Goodluck's entries even though they were allegedly not subject to the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India at the time. Goodluck participated in the original AD investigation, then successfully challenged the decision at CIT where the court revoked the order for Goodluck.

The case, however, was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the decision to revoke the order for Goodluck was reversed. The order was reinstated and along with it the 33.7% cash deposit rate. But during this time, Commerce began the second and third administrative reviews of the AD duty order. Commerce then instructed CBP to liquidate Goodluck's entries subject to the third administrative review at the 33.7% rate -- a move Goodluck now contests since it says it was not subject to the order at the time the review was initiated (see 2201310039).

Goodluck filed its case under Sections 1581(c) and (i), leading to DOJ filing a partial motion to dismiss the Section 1581(c) claims. While the respondent does not oppose the motion, it wants jurisdiction solidified under Section 1581(i). However, what Goodluck did oppose was the U.S.'s statement of facts that said that since Goodluck requested a review of its entries covered by the second administrative review, Commerce reinitiated the second review but that Goodluck did not request a review of its third review entries during the appeal.

While the respondent did request a review of its second review entries, it only did so since it had exported merchandise during the review period that entered before Commerce revoked the AD order for Goodluck, the brief said. "Defendant omits the critical fact that when it filed its AR2 POR review request, it was unclear how Commerce would treat Goodluck’s entries during the AR2 POR that entered before the Amended Final LTFV Determination," the brief said. "Goodluck accordingly acted appropriately and conservatively by requesting a review of its AR2 sales. More critically, Defendant, in its Motion, omits the fact that Commerce denied Goodluck’s AR2 review request."

Goodluck went on to argue against DOJ's ambivalence regarding jurisdiction for the respondent's claims, seeing as the U.S. said it finds "no reason at this time to contest jurisdiction" under Section 1581(i). "Goodluck requests that this Court expeditiously resolve jurisdiction, so that briefing on the merits can proceed," the brief said.