Trade Court Grants Stay Order in Challenge to Scope Ruling Request Denial Over US Objection

The Court of International Trade in a May 17 order granted a stay requested by the plaintiffs in an antidumping duty scope dispute, led by Chinese exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. but contested by the U.S. As such, consideration of the U.S.'s motion to dimsiss and all other proceedings will be stayed until 21 days after the Commerce Department issues its final decision in the changed circumstances review over the AD investigation on multilayered wood flooring from China, the court said (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

Three companies, Yuhua, A-Timber Flooring Company and Mullican Flooring Co., challenged Commerce's decision to not undertake a scope inquiry as part of the AD investigation on multilayered wood flooring from China (see 2109210059). In the investigation, Commerce found a zero percent dumping margin for Yuhua, excluding it from the order. Nevertheless, the respondent had requested the scope ruling from Commerce to confirm that its wood flooring products imported by A-Timber are excluded from the order. After the request was denied, the plaintiffs then requested a changed circumstances review seeking the same result. The agency then initiated the review. Proceedings are ongoing.

DOJ moved to dismiss the scope ruling denial challenge, arguing that Commerce's move to deny the scope ruling request is not a reviewable decision (see 2203010043). Jurisdiction will instead be available once Commerce has completed its changed circumstances review, DOJ said. The U.S. then also filed a brief contesting the plaintiffs' motion to stay on similar grounds, arguing that since the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, it doesn't have the power to grant the stay motion.

In the end, the court sided with the Chinese exporters, granting the stay motion, ordering the parties to conduct a status conference once 21 days have passed after Commerce issues its final decision in the changed circumstances review. While not accompanying the order with an opinion, the court weighed its decision in favor of the plaintiffs' arguments for jurisdiction, which said that since it is uncertain what the final relief will be, it's not clear whether there will be jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) to make its case, vying for Section 1581(i) jurisdiction instead.