CIT Ruling Over Motion to Toss Alternate Jurisdiction Relevant for AD Case, Plaintiffs Argue
A recent Court of International Trade decision in Goodluck India v. U.S. is relevant in a case on the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico conducted after a suspension agreement was terminated, plaintiffs in another case, led by Bioparques de Occidente, claimed in a Dec. 14 notice of supplemental authority. In Goodluck, the trade court said that the U.S. cannot dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2212010024). Bioparques' case presents a similar scenario, the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
"As the Court is aware, the present case involves three consolidated actions that raise identical claims under alternate theories of jurisdiction," the brief said. "All Parties agree that there is jurisdiction to hear" the claims "under one statutory provision or another. Consequently, under the logic of the Goodluck India decision, there is no basis to dismiss those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."