Federal Circuit Issues Mandates in 3 Cases Challenging AD Case Under Suspension Agreement

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in three cases challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the opinions, the appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellants have the right to judicially challenge the final determination even if they're subject to a suspension agreement, though it did dismiss many of the claims made in the actual actions (Red Sun Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2230) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2232) (Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1292).

In one case, brought by Red Sun Farms, the Federal Circuit further remanded the matter to find whether the plaintiff had standing to sue, as it is five companies rolled up into one, and whether Red Sun Farms can be named as the lone plaintiff (see 2204140067). The Red Sun Farms decision also came with a dissent from Judge Timothy Dyk, who held that it is unlikely Congress intended for lawsuits to be filed that challenge a final determination unrelated to the suspension agreement. The mandate was issued in the case June 6.

In another case, brought by plaintiffs led by Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa (CAADES), the court touched on the parties' challenges to the termination of a 2013 suspension agreement and the 2019 suspension agreement over the AD investigation into tomatoes from Mexico. Departing from the Court of International Trade ruling, the Federal Circuit said that the requested relief via reinstating the 2013 agreement could be achieved, but that the claims fail on the merits. The mandate was issued in that case.

Lastly, in a case brought by Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. and others, the court said it has jurisdiction over the final determination challenge but it does not have jurisdiction over the interim challenge. As for the 2019 agreement claims, the Federal Circuit said that while Jem D does not make a duress claim like CAADES, its summons was untimely filed and must be dismissed. Its mandate was issued as well.