US Opposes Mediation, Retrial in Case Over First-Sale Valuation

The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

When the case originally was at the trade court, Judge Thomas Aquilino called into question the use of first sale concerning imports from nonmarket economies. The Federal Circuit ruled CBP had no basis to consider a country's NME status when deciding whether to grant first-sale treatment (see 2208110060). Back at CIT, the case now turns to the question of how to appraise the relevant imports.

In its motion for a status conference, Meyer suggested mediation or retrial for the ensuing remand period (see 2212120031). The U.S., in its reply, objected to both. While the government said it "stands ready, willing, and able to participate" in a status conference, it urges the court to reject both of the plaintiff's options for the case's next steps.

The U.S. said the prospect of mediation is "premature." It assumes that this Court, the government said, "upon reconsideration of an extensive trial record, would be incapable of rendering a judgment after eliminating consideration of the potential effects of" China being a nonmarket economy, "or that the Court would not have already scheduled a conference if it required assistance from the parties." The already established record shows "ineluctably" that Meyer failed to establish a right to first-sale value for its imported cookware, the brief said.

The government met the suggestion for a retrial with similar opposition. The U.S. first said the retrial motion was untimely filed, then argued the importer misinterpreted the trial court's original decision by claiming it was largely grounded on the nonmarket economy question. Instead, the court gave an independent reason for rejecting first-sale treatment to Meyer, given the importer's failure to provide financial information requested by the U.S. concerning the relationships between the related parties in the case. The retrial request is "inconsistent with Rule 1 of the Court's rules to 'secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,'" the government said, seeing as Meyer already had the chance to make its case for first-sale treatment.