Reconsideration of Trade Court Opinion Would Be a 'Do-Over,' Should Be Denied, DOJ Argues

Reconsideration of a Court of International Trade opinion on the origin of uninterruptable power supplies would amount to simple "do-over" and should be denied, DOJ said in an April 20 motion. Cyber Power failed to prove that a substantial transformation occurred for four models of its power supplies and one model of its surge voltage protector at trial, DOJ said, and reconsideration would only provide Cyber Power a chance to relitigate the case (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 20-00124).

Cyber Power failed to identify any “fundamental or significant flaw” in the court’s decision in order for reconsideration to be available, DOJ said. Cyber Power's arguments correctly failed to convince the court on the merits,DOJ said, citing discrepancies between the exhibits and the testimony of Cyber Power's Philippines facility manager, Chi-Ting Huang.

A partial retrial to allow Huang to answer “follow-up questions” amounts to relitigating a section of the case, DOJ said. Any testimony that Cyber Power wants to elicit now could have been done during the two days Huang was on the stand or during his pre-trial deposition.

The court was “unable to determine whether the devices were substantially transformed in the Philippines but the burden of proof was on Cyber Power to show that its merchandise was substantially transformed, which it failed to do,” DOJ said. CIT was not obligated to find that Cyber Power transshipped five of the six product models through the Philippines, DOJ said. It only needed to find that the company failed to meet its burden to prove CBP's country-of-origin determination wrong. The court has already explicitly considered evidence that Cyber Power wants to rehash, DOJ said.

Cyber Power said the court improperly attributed "evidentiary weight" to the presumption of correctness by CBP in its motion for reconsideration (see 2303310002). The retrial or rehearing would allow the court to address "unanswered questions," particularly from Huang, who was not questioned by the court, Cyber Power said. The court is effectively mandated to ensure it has all available information in order to arrive at the correct conclusion, so it must take appropriate action to obtain that information, Cyber Power had argued.