NU CO R C OR P OR AT ION , Plaintiff,
v. UN ITED STA TES ,

De fe nd ant. Slip Op. 07-144 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 07- 00174

OP IN ION [Denying the motions t o intervene of rig ht of Stelco Inc., Dof asco I nc., Sorevc o Inc., Do Sol Galva Ltd., Mitt al Steel USA Inc., and United States Steel Corporation, deny ing pla intiff’s motion for a pre liminary

injunction, and g rantingthe motion of defe ndant to dismiss this action for lac k of subject matter

jurisdiction] Dated: Septembe r 26, 2007 W ile yRe in L LP ( Tim oth yC. B rig htb ill and Alan H. Price ) for

plaintiff Nucor Corporation. Vi ns on &El

k ins LLP ( Christ opher Dunn and Da v id T . H ar din ) forproposed plaintiffintervenor

Stelco I nc. Hu nto n &W

ill iam s LLP

( W illiam Sil verm an , Douglas J. He ffner , and Ri c ha rd

P. Fe rri n ) for pr oposed plaintiff-inter venors Dof

asco Inc., Sorevc o Inc., and D o Sol Galva L td. Ste war t an d S

te war t ( Te re nc e P. Ste war t

and Eric P. Salonen ) for

proposed plaintiffintervenor

Mittal S teel USA Inc. Sk ad de n, Ar ps , S late, M e ag he r a nd Flom LLP

( Robert E. Lighthizer , John J. M angan , and J e ffr e yD. Ge rri

sh ) for proposed plaintiff- intervenor United States Steel Corporation. Peter D. Ke isler , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

Richard P. Schroe der

and David S. Silverbrand ); Ma rk B . L e hn ard

t, Offic e of Chief

Counsel for Import Administration, United St ates De partment of Commerc e, of c ouns e l, f or de fe nd ant.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 2

Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ff Nuc or Corporation (“Nuc or”) , a domestic produc er of steel products, initiated this action under 19 U .S.C. § 1516a (2000) to contest a f inal deter mination (“F inal Results”) issued by the International Trade Administration, United States Depar tment of Commerce ( “Commerce ” or the “De partment” ) in an a dminist rative r eview of an antidumping duty order on cer tain corr osion-resistant ca rbon steel f

lat products fr om Canada. See Ce rta in Corrosion-Resistant C

arbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Anti dumping Duty Administrative Rev iew , 72 Fe d. Reg . 12,758 (Mar . 19, 2007). Be fore the cour

t are motions t o intervene as a matter of r ight on be half of Stelco I nc. (“Stelco” ), Dofa sco Inc. (“ Dofa sco”) , Sorevco I nc. (“ Sorevco” ), Do Sol Galva Ltd. (“Do Sol Ga lva ” ), Mitta l Ste e l U SA I nc . ( “ Mitta l Ste e l U SA” ), and Un ite d St a te s Ste e l Co rp or a tio n ( “ U. S. Steel”) ( collectively

“propose d plaintiff-interve nors”) . Plaintiff Nucor move s for a preliminary injunction to prevent liquidation by Customs of the e ntries of c erta in corrosion-r esistant car bon steel flat pr oducts (“subje ct merc handise” ) fr om Canada ma nufac tured by

produce rs Stelco, Dofa sco, Sorevc o, and Do Sol Galva. D efe ndant United States moves to dismiss t his action purs ua nt t o U SCI T Ru le 12 (b )( 1) fo r l a c k o f j ur isd ic tio n, a lle g ingthat N uc or did no t pa rt ic ipate as a pa rty in the administrative re view that conc luded in the issuance of the F inal Results and there fore lacks standing
. Be cause Nucor

did not participate in the D epar tment’s proce edingculminating in the Final Results to the extent necessa ry to qualify

as a pa rty to that proce eding , the cour t concludes that Nucor

lacke d standingto bring a ca use of a ction under 19 U .S.C. § 1516a. Accor dingly , the court must deny

Nucor ’s motion for a pr eliminary injunction. Bec ause inter vention could not
c ur e the de fe c t in

su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n c a us e d b y Nu c or ’s fa ilure to e sta

bli shsta nd ingtoCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 3

Dofa sco, Sorevc o, and Do Sol Galva a re pla intiffs in Dofasco Inc . v. United States , 1 Court No . 0 7- 00 13 5, in whic h is ple a de d th e same c la im that N uc or atte mpt s to a sse rt

in t his action. br ingits c la im, the c ourt

a lso mus t de ny

the mot ion s to int e rv e ne and g ra nt t he mot ion

to d ism iss this action. I. B ACKG ROUND Nucor filed a summons on May 21, 2007, a complaint on June 20, 2007, and an amended complaint on J une 29, 2007. In the amende d complaint, Nucor challeng es as c ontrary

to law the Depa rtment’s re

jection of the r equests of c erta in parties for resc ission of the administrative revie w and the r esulting c ontinuation of that administrative revie w. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Nucor seeks a ruling holding the F inal Results to be unsupported by substantial rec ord evide nce a nd otherwise not in ac corda

nce w ith law and an or der r emandingthe Fina l Results t o Commerce f or rede termination. Id. at 3, REQ. FO R J . AND REL I EF ¶ ¶ 1-2. On J uly 19 and 20, 2007, the six proposed plaintiff-interve nors moved for intervention as a matter of rig ht, all on the side of plaintiff Nuc or. See2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 6 3 1 ( j ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; U S C IT R. 24(a). In its mot ion, Stelco states that it is a Canadian produc er a nd exporter of the subjec t
me rc ha nd ise and that it fu lly pa rt ic ipate d in

the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w. Mo t. t o Inte rv e ne As A Matter of Right on the Side of Pl. 2 (“Stelco’ s Mot. to I nterve ne”) . In a joint motion fil ed J uly 20, 2007, Dofa sco, Sorevc o, and Do Sol Galva state that they are Canadian pr oducer s of subject merc handise a

nd that they

participated as re spondents in the administrative re view. 1 Partial Consent Mot. to I nterve ne as of Right as Pl.-Interve nor ¶ 2 ( “Dof asco, Sore vco, Do Sol Galva Mot. to Interve ne”) . I n its mot ion filed the same da y , U.S. Steel states that it is a producerCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 4

On May 29 , 2 00 7, U. S. St e e l w a s g ra nte d s tatus a s a

pla int if f- int e rv e no r a

nd a s a 2 defe ndant-interve nor in Dofasco Inc . v. United States , Court No. 07-00135. of the do me sti c lik e pr od

uc t and that it pa rt ic ipate d in

the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w. Mo t. t o 2 Inte rv e ne a s o f R ig ht a s Pl. -I nte rv e no r ¶

2 ( “ U. S. St e e l Mo t. t o Inte rv e ne ” ). In it s mo tio n, a lso filed Jul y 20, 2007, Mittal S teel USA states that it is a domestic produc er of corr osion-resistant steel flat pr oducts and that it participated in the administrative re view. Partial Consent Mot. of Ap pli c ant P l.- I nte rv e no r M itt a l Ste e l U SA I nc . to Inte rv e ne a s o f R ig ht 2 (“ Mitta l Ste e l U SA Mot. to I nterve ne”) . Def

endant United States did not conse nt to any of the motions to intervene. Acc ordingto the motions of certa in proposed plaintiff- intervenor s, defe ndant re fused to conse nt on the g round that Nuc or is not a prope r par ty plaintiff and the c ourt there fore lacks jurisdiction over pla intiff’s claim. SeeSte lc o’ s Mo t. t o Inte rv e ne 1; D of a sc o, Sor e vc o, Do Sol Ga lva Mo t. t o Interve ne ¶ 5; U.S. Steel Mot. to I nterve ne ¶ 5. O n September 7, 2007, de fenda nt submit ted, with a motion for leave to file out of time, a re sponse in opposition t o the interve ntion of Mittal Steel USA, alleg ing that Mitt al Steel USA was not a party to the proce edingbelow and the ref ore do e s n ot q

ua lif y fo r i nte rv e nti on

a s a matte r o f r ig ht. De f. ’s Re sp . to Mitta l Ste e l U SA’ s Mo t. t o Inte rv e ne ; seeMittal S teel USA Mot. to I nterve ne. On J uly 20, 2007, Nucor

moved for a

preliminary

injunction “to enjoin the liquidation of any and all entr ies of ce rtain cor rosion-re sistant carbon stee l flat products fr om Canada manufa cture d by

Dofa sco Inc., Sorevc o Inc., Do Sol Galva Ltd., and Stelco Inc.” Mot. for Prelim. I nj. 1. Nucor state d in support of its moti on that it had obtained the c onsent of Stelco,Court No. 07- 00174 P age 5

Nucor stated in its moti on for a preliminary

injunction that it had obtained the conse nt 3 of all propose d plaintiff-interve nors but does not state that it obtained the c onsent of Mittal Steel USA. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 2. Dofa sco, Sorevc o, Do Sol Galva, and U .S. St eel to the e ntry of a pr eliminary

injunction. Id.

3
a t 2. On Au g us t 3, 20 07 , d e fe nd ant, a lle g ingthat N uc or la c ks sta nd ing , mo ve d to dis mis s th is action for lack of subject matter jur isdiction and opposed plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary inj un c tio n. De f. ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss and Op p’ n to Pl. ’s Mo t. f

or a Pr e lim . Inj. 1 ( “ De f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss”). II. D I S CUS S I ON

A. Nu c or Ha s N ot E sta

bli sh e d St and ingto C on te st t he F ina l Re su lts To c on te st t

he F ina l Re su lts , N uc or

mus t satis fy

the re qu ir e me nts of

19 U. S.C. § 1516a(a ), on which it re lies for its cause of ac tion, and 28 U.S.C. 2631(c), whic h g overns standing in suits brought bef ore the Court of International Trade
. SeeAm. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3. Un de r 1 9 U .S. C. § 15 16 a (a )( 2) (A ), an a c tio n ma y be c omm e nc e d b y

“ an inte re ste d p art

y wh o is a pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g in c onne c tio n w ithwh ic h th e matte r a ri se s . . . .” 19 U. S.C. § 1 5 1 6 a( a) (2 )( A)
. I np ar al l el , 2 8 U. S
. C
. 2 6 3 1 (c ) p ro v i d es th at “[ a] ci v i l ac t i o nco n t es t i n g a deter mination lis ted in [19 U.S .C. § 1516a] may be commenc ed in the Court of International Trade by any interested pa

rty who was a

party to the proce edingin connec tion with which the matter a rose.” 28 U.S.C. 2631(c). Nu c or a lle g e s in

its ame nd e d c omp la int

(a nd de fe nd ant d oe s n ot c on te st) that N uc or is a manufa cture r of the dome stic like product and the ref ore is an “ interested pa

rty ” within the
me anin g of

19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (f

)( 3) and § 1 67 7( 9) (C ) ( 20 00 ). Am . Co mpl . ¶ 3; see19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (f )( 3) (d e fi nin g “ int e re ste d p art y ” by re fe re nc e to 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 (9 )) ; 19 U. S.C.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 6

§ 1 67 7( 9) (C ) ( de fi nin g“ int e re ste d p art y ” to i nc lud e “ a

manu fa c tur e r, pr od

uc e r, or wh ole sa le r i n the United States of a

domestic like product” ). Nuc or fur ther a lleg es that it participate d in the
a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w “ thr ou g h a c tio ns inc lud inge nte ri nga no tic e of a pp e ara nc e , r e g ula

rl y monitoring the status of the proce eding , and re viewingall of the doc uments that were submitt ed or issued in the under ly ing pr ocee ding.” Am. Compl. ¶ 3. I n further support of its claim of standing , Nucor

states that “Plaintiff also pa rticipated in discussions (includingtelephone
c on fe re nc e s) wi th o the r p art ie s r e g ard ingva ri ou s is su e s in c lud ingc a se str a te g y , c a se se ttl e me nt, and the pa

rties’ de cisions to withdraw their r equests for administrative re view, which Plaintiff supported.” Id. I n its opposit ion to the motion t o dismiss , Nucor makes the a dditional argument that Co mme rc e imp lic itl y re c og nize d it s st a tus a s a pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g by

makin g ava ila

ble to Nucor’ s repr esentatives the business proprieta ry information of other

parties a nd the Depa rtment’s pre liminary

calc ulations. Pl .’s Resp. to Def .’s Mot. to Dismis s 4-5. B ased on the various fa ctual alleg ations in its amended complaint, Nucor seeks to invoke the c ourt’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1581(c) (2000) , under which the Court of International Trade is gr anted e x clusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenc ed under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. See28 U.S.C. 1581(c). Nu c or ha s f a ile d to a lle g e fa c ts f

ro m w hic h th e c ourt

c ou ld c on sid e r Nuc or

to q ua lif y a s a “par ty to the proce eding ” in conne ction with which the matter arose . 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (2); 28 U.S.C. § 2631(c). The court c oncludes that Nuc or’s c laimed level of participation does not
satis fy any re a so na ble c on str uc tio n o f t

he “ pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g ” re qu ir e me nt t hat Co ng re ss imposed as a c ondition for obtaining judicia l review
.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 7

Although the term “pa

rty to the proce eding ” is not defined by statute, the De partment’s regulations define the te rm as “a ny interested pa

rty that actively

participates, throug h written submissi ons of fa ctual information or written ar g ument, in a seg ment of a pr ocee ding.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b) ( 2006). Nuc or ac knowledg es that it prese nted no written fa ctual mater ial or written a

rgument to the Depa

rtment by admitting that “it did not make wr itten submiss ions as
re qu ir e d und e r 1 9 C. F .R. § 3 51 .1 02 .” Pl. ’s Re sp . to De f. ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss 5. Ho we ve r, be c a us e the cour t must determine whethe r the subjec t matter jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) attache d to Nucor’ s claim, Nucor ’s ac knowledg ment that it did not s atisfy the “wr itten submissi on” re quirement of 19 C.F .R. § 351.102 does not fully resolve the standing issue prese nted by

this case. Nucor ’s ar g ument for standingdoes not addre ss the question of whethe r the de finition of “par ty to the proce eding ” in the De partment’s r egulations, which requir es ac tive participation throug h at least one written submission setti ng forth fa ctual informa tion or argument, could be controlling if applied to re solve a funda mental question of the e x tent of the c ourt’s jurisdiction. No r d o es Nu co r, al th o u ghci t i n g Chevron U.S.A. I nc. v. Natural Resource

s DefenseCouncil, Inc. , 46 7 U .S. 83 7, 84 3 ( 19 84 ), a dd re ss t he qu e sti on

of wh e the r 1 9 C. F .R. § 3 51 .1 02 is a re a so na ble
c on str uc tio n o f t

he statut or

y te rm that is e nti tle d to the c ourt ’s de fe re nc e wh e n a pp lie d in thi s jurisdictional context. SeePl. ’s Re sp . to De f. ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss 4; Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843-44; Pesquera M

ares Australes Ltda. v. United States , 266 F.3d 1372, 1382 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001). Howeve r, the c ourt perc eives no ne ed to re ach the se questions in this case be cause the ac tions Nu c or a lle g e s it too k d ur ingthe a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w a re ins uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shthatCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 8

Nucor does not indicate in its pleadingwhat it stated in its notice of appe ara nce or under 4 what re g ulatory

provision it filed this not ice. The court obser ves that 19 C.F.R. § 351.103(c ) allows intereste d parties to re quest to be included on the service list for a seg ment of a proce eding
. See19 C.F.R. § 351.103(c)
. Nucor was a party to the administrative re view proc eedingunder a ny rea sonable c onstruction of the te rm “ pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g ” a s u se d in 19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (a )( 2) (A ) a nd 28 U. S.C. § 2631(c)
. Fr om Nucor’ s pleading s and submissions, t he cour t must conclude that Nuc or’s e ntire
corr espondenc e with Commerce was limited to what it terms a “notice of appe ara nce” and an application to re ceive information under an administrative pr otective or der ( “APO”) . Filing of
eac h of these doc uments does not itself constitute meaning ful participation in the Depar tment’s proce eding ; such filings a re me rely proce dural steps that c ommunicate nothing of substance on any matter to be a ddresse d in the administrative re view. 4 Nucor ’s alleg ations that it eng ag ed in ce rtain other a ctivities, i.e. , that it monit ored the status of the proc eedingand par ticipated in ca se strate g y

sessions and settlement neg otiations with other par

ties to the review , do not remedy the def iciency in Nucor’ s claim of standing . As important as those ac tiviti es may have be en to Nucor

at the time, they

wer e distinct from ac tual p art i ci p at i o ni nth e p ro ce ed i n g t h atC o m m er ce wa s co n d u ct i n g.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 9

Def endant c ites cer

tain leg islative history

of the Tr ade A g ree ments Act of 1979, whic h 5 g e ne ra lly e qu a te s p art

y status wi th p art ic ipatio n in the a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e e din g . D e f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss 4 (citing S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 249-51 (1979), re pr inte d in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 381, 635-37). How ever , the par ties have not dire cted the c ourt to pertinent leg islative history for g uidance on the question of whe ther Cong ress, in re quiring a plaintiff to have been a party to the administrative proc eeding , intended a lowe r threshold of pa rticipation than that re quired by 1 9 C
. F
. R
. § 3 5 1
. 1 0 2 ( b )
. T h e c o urt ’ s o w nr e s e ar c hh a s n o tun c o v e r e d an y s u c hl e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y. The statutory

scheme indicates that Cong ress intende d to require , as a c ondition for obtaining judicia l review , some level of pa rticipation befor e the a g ency beyond the steps identified by

Nucor
. The statutory

scheme limit s the scope of judicial revie w of the 5 Depa rtment’s dete rminations to the ag ency rec ord. See19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (b ); 28 U. S.C. § 2 64 0( b) (2 00 0) . B e c a

us e Nu c or ’s fi lin g s w e re lim ite d to its no tic e of a pp e ara nc e and a re qu e st for a cce ss to business proprietary information, the re cord in the a dminist rative r eview w ould not have be en mater ially

differ ent had Nuc or ig nored the proce edingentirely . Additionally , the statut or y sc he me pr ov ide s th a t th e c ourt , in re vie wi ngthe a g e nc y ’s de c isi on on the re c or d, sh a ll require a par

ty contestinga dete rmination to ex haust administrative re medies whe re a ppropriate
. See28 U. S.C. § 2 63 7( d) . T hu s, in t he no rm a l in sta

nc e , w ithon ly

na rr owe xce pti on s, a

pa rt y
c ha lle ng ingany

a sp e c t of a fi na l Co mme rc e de te rm ina tio n f ir st mus t ha

ve pr e se nte d it s
ar gu m en t s t o C o m m er ce fo r d ec i s i o nd uri n g th e a dm i n i s tra t i v e p ro ce ed i n g. Congr ess spec ified that the pa rty seekingstanding to challeng e a de termination must have be e n “ a pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g ” and

no t, f or e xamp le , me re ly

an “ int e re ste d p art

y ,” a s d e fi ne d in 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7( 9) . Pr oc e dura l st e ps su c h a s a no tic e of a pp e ara nc e and an a pp lic a tio n to
rec eive business propr ietary information under

an APO ar e more in the nature of pre paration for participation than participation itself. Were the court to treat them as sufficie nt to conferCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 10

sta nd ing , it wo uld so we ake n th e “ pa

rt y to t he pr oc e e din g ” re qu ir e me nt a s to re nd e r i t pr a c tic a lly
me anin g le ss. Th e c ourt do e s n ot f

ind me ri t in Nu c or ’s argume nt t

hat Co mme rc e imp lic itl y
a c kn ow le dg e d N uc or ’s pa rt y status in gra

nti ngNu c or ’s re pr e se ntativ e s a c c e ss t o b us ine ss pr op ri e tary

inf or matio n a nd dis c los ingpr e lim ina

ry c a lc ulatio ns . In s up po rt

of thi s a rgume nt, Nu c or po int s to 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7f (c )( 1) (A ) ( 20 00 ), un de r whic h Co mme rc e mus t “ make a ll bu sin e ss p ro pr ie ta

ry inf or matio n p re se nte d to , o r o bta ine d b y it, duri nga

pr oc e e din g . . . ava ila

ble to interested pa

rties who ar e par

ties to the proce edingunder a protec tive order

. . . .” SeePl.’s Resp. to Def.’ s Mot. to Dism iss 4. Nucor points to 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(b) (2006) , under which
r e g u l a t i o nC o m m e r c e i s t o “ d i s c l o s e t o a p arty t o th e p r o c e e d i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s p e r f o r m e d , i f an y, in connec tion with a preliminary deter mination . . . .” See id. Th e pla in l angua g e of 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7f (c )( 1) (A ) d oe s n ot p re c lud e Com me rc e fr om r e le a sin g bu sin e ss p ro pr ie tary inf or matio n to a per son’s qualified r epre sentatives under an APO prior to the pe rson’s doingall that is require d to obtain status as a par

ty to the proce eding . A per son’s repr esentatives, upon proper application, may qualify to obtain proprietar

y information under

an APO prior to the pe rson’s makingwritten submissi ons of fa ct or a

rgument. Indeed, it would see m impractica ble for Commerc e to delay the
re le a se of pr op ri e tary

inf or matio n unti l after

submissi on of such wr itten fac t or argument, which
may re ly on su c h in fo rm a tio n. I n th is r e g ard , th e De pa rtme nt’ s r e g ulatio ns c on ta in s e pa ra te definitions for the ter

m “par ty to the proce eding ” and the term “a uthorized applicant.” See 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b) ( definingan “a uthorized applicant” a s “an a pplicant that the Secr etar

y ha s a uth or ize d to re c e ive bu sin e ss p ro pr ie tary inf or matio n und e r a

n A PO u nd e r [1 9 U .S. C. § 1677f(c )(1) ].”). For

simil ar r easons, the c ourt is not persuade d by Nucor ’s ar g ument thatCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 11

Comme rc e imp lic itl y

re c og nize d N uc or ’s status a s a pa rt y to t he pr oc e e din g by

dis c los ingto Nucor its preliminary

calc ulations. Neither the statute, in 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(c)( 1), nor the Depa rtment’s re g ulations, in 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(b), both of which pe rtain to the De partment’s disclosure of pr eliminary

calc ulations, preclude the re lease of pre liminary calc ulations to a p er s o nwh o h as n o ty etqu al i fi edfo r s t at u s as a p arty t o th e p ro ce ed i n g. In support of its claim of standing , Nucor cites the unpublished opinion of the Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit in Laclede Stee l Co. v. United States , N o. 96 -1 02 9, 19 96 U. S. App. L EXI S 16167 (Fe d. Cir. 1996), aff’g 19 CI T 1 07 6 ( 19 95 ). Pl. ’s Re sp . to De f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss 2-3. Nucor a lso cites the opinions of the Court of International Trade in Sp e c ial ty Merc handise Corp. v. United States , 31 CI T __, __, 477 F. Supp. 2d. 1359, 1361-62 ( 2007), Encon Industries, Inc . v. United States , 18 CI T 867 (1994), a nd American G rape Growers v. United States , 9 CI T 1 03 , 1 05 -0 6, 60 4 F . Su pp . 1 24 5, 12 49 (1 98 5) . Pl .’ s Re sp . to De f. ’s Mo t. t o Dismiss 2. Each of these case s is dist inguisha ble from the instant c ase. In Laclede Stee l Co. , the Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit affirme d the Court of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de ’s a llo wi ngthe int e rv e nti on a s a matte r o f r ig ht u

nd e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 6 3 1 ( j ) ( 1 ) ( B ) o f

tw o K o r e ans t e e l p i p e m anu f a c tur e r s , U n i o nS t e e l M anu f a c tur i n g C o mp an y, L imited (“Union”) and Dongbu Steel Company , L imited (“Dongbu”), in a judicial revie w of a final Commerce antidumping de termination on steel pipe. 1996 U.S. App. L EXI S 16167 at *1, *4. The pla intiff, a petitioner in the inve stigation, argued on appe al that Union and Dongbu, whose pa

rticipation in the antidumping inve stigation consisted of filing e ntries of appea ranc e bef ore Commerc e and submitting f actua l data on exports during the per iod of inv e sti g a tio n to a ssi st C omm e rc e in t he se le c tio n o f m and a tor

y re sp on de nts , n e ve r a c tiv e lyCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 12

participated in the antidumping inve stigation and there fore did not qualify as “pa rties to the proce eding ” for

purposes of inter

vention. See id. at *1-*3. The Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit disag ree d, rea soning that Union and Dongbu eac h actively participated in the antidumping investig ation so as to qualify as a “ party

to the proce eding ” within the meaningof 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B ). Id. at *4-*6. The Court of Appea ls reasone d that in submit ting the fac tual data on e x ports, Union and Dongbu “cor responde d with Comm erc e re questing exclusion
a s ma nd a tor y re sp on de nts , th e re by

imp lie dly

ind ic a tin g the ir

wi lli ng ne ss t o a c c e pt a

n ‘ a ll o the rs ’ rate .” Id. at *6. This active pa rticipation, ac cordingto the Court of Appea ls, made Commerce
awa re of Union’s and Dong

bu’s intere sts in the investigation and c onstitut ed steps that Union and Dongbu deeme d nece ssary to further their intere sts at the administrative level. Id. In contra st, Nucor pr ovided Commerce nothing to inform Commerc e of a ny fac ts or positions rele vant to issues in the administrative revie w. In Specialty M

erchandise Corp. , th e Court of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de re c e ntl y he ld t hat a plaintiff obtained standingto contest a fina l determination of Commerc e by filing a notice of appea ranc e with comments, albe it untim ely , informing Commerce that the plaintiff was joining arguments made by

other pa rties in the administrative proc eeding . 31 CI T at __, 477 F . Supp. 2d. at 1361-62. He re, Nucor’ s pleading s do not alleg e that Nuc or informe d Commerce, e ither orally or in writing , that Nucor

was joining in the advoca cy of any argument that any

party had made or was makingin the administrative re view. Nuc or ar g ues, neve rtheless, that its “ac tive
and c on sis te nt c oll a

bo ratio n w ithoth e r p art ie s to the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w, inc lud ingits vis ibl e pa rt ic ipatio n in

the se ttl e me nt n e g oti a tio ns , d e mon str a te that N uc or pr ov ide d n oti c e of

its
conce rns.” Pl.’s Resp. to Def .’s Mot. to Dismis s 5. This argument fails to overc ome the proble mCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 13

inhere nt in Nucor’s a lleg ation of standing , which is that Nucor fails to plead f

acts fr om which the court c ould conclude that Nucor c ommunicated with the De partment, ora lly or in writing , on any thing of substance dur ing the administrative re view. Encon Industries, Inc

. also is unavailing as support for plaintiff’s standingargument. See Encon Industries, Inc

. , 1 8 CI T 8 67 . In th a t c a se , th e Court of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de de c lin e d to
asser t jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s c halleng e to an amended f inal less-than-f

air-va lue deter mination of Commerce be cause the plaintiff fa iled to exhaust i ts administrative remedie s. Id. at8 6 7 -6 8
. T h e p l ai n t i ff , d uri n g t h e i n v es t i gat i o n , h adn o tch al l en gedth e m et h o d o l o gy Commerce use d in calculating a n “all other s” rate. Id. at 868. Ruling on e x haustion g rounds, the Court of International Trade did not reac h the issue of whe ther Enc on, which had f iled a notice of appea ranc e in the Commerce investigation but did not submit factual information or make ora l or written comments, had sta nding to f ile suit under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and 28 U.S.C. §2631(c)
. Id. In dic ta , howeve r, the Court of International Trade stated that “[t] he cour t is inclined to view the participation requireme nt as intending meaning ful participation, that is, action which would put Commerce on notice of a pa rty ’s conc erns.” Id
. (c i t i n g Am . G ra peGr owe rs , 9 CI T at 105-06, 604 F. Supp. at 1249). Nucor quotes languag e fr om the opinion Am e ric an Grap e Growe rs . Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mo t. t o D ism iss 2. In th a t c a se , th e Court of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de state d th a t [o] n the question of par

ticipation in the proce eding , the law is satisfied by any form of notification or pa

rticipation which re asonably convey s the separ ate status of a party . The pa

rticipation requir ement is obviously intended only

to bar a ction by someone who did not take the opportunity to further its int ere sts on the a dmi nis tr a tiv e le ve l.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 14

9 CI T at 105-06, 604 F . Supp. at 1249. At issue in Am e ric an Grap e Growe rs was whe ther Gi bs on Wine Co. (“ Gi bs on ” ) h a d s tand ingbe fo re the Court of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de to c on te st a fi na l in jur y de te rm inatio n th a t th e U. S. Inte rn a tio na l T ra de Com mis sio n ( “ I TC” ) i ssu e d in antidumping a

nd counter

vailing duty

investigations of imported table wine f rom Fr ance and Italy
. 9 CI T at 10 3, 10 5- 06 , 6 04 F . Su pp . at 12 47 , 1 24 9. Th e qu e sti on of Gi bs on ’s sta

nd ingaro se in the context of whether

Gibson did any

thing more than par

ticipate in the I TC’s administrative proce edingthroug h passive member ship in an umbrella org anization. Id. The Court in American Grap e Growe rs conclude d that Gibson met the requir ed standa rds for pa rticipation, noting that

“ [t]he lis tin g of

Gi bs on a s a c o- pe tit ion e r i n a

po st- c on fe re nc e br ie f i s su ff ic ie nt t o s a tis fy

the se standards.” 9 CI T at 106, 604 F . Supp. at 1249. Be cause Gibson’s level of pa rticipation in the I TC proce edingwas not closely analog ous to Nucor’ s claimed pa rticipation in the administrative revie w, Am e ric an Grap e Gr owe rs does not lend guidance to the resolution of the standing qu e sti on pr e se nte d b y

de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. In summary , Nucor

has fa iled to alleg e fa cts from whic h the cour t may conclude that Nucor was a party to the administrative proc eedingculminating in the issuanc e of the Final Results. Nucor, ther efor e, lac ks the standing Congr ess re quired of a ny person se ekingjudicial revie w under

19 U.S.C. § 1516a. B. The Motions for Interve ntion of Right Must Be Denied The propose d plaintiff-interve nors timely moved to intervene as a matter of r ight pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B ) and U SCI T Rule 24(a)
. SeeUSC I T R. 24 (a ) ( pr ov idi ngthat a motion is timely

if made no later than thirty day s after

the date of

service of the c omplaint); Stelco’s Mot. to I nterve ne 1, 3; Dofa sco, Sorevc o, Do Sol Galva Mot. to I nterve ne ¶¶ 2, 4;Court No. 07- 00174 P age 15

U.S. Steel Mot. to I nterve ne ¶¶ 2, 4; Mitt al Steel USA Mot. to I nterve ne 1-2. The issue prese nted by the motions to i nterve ne is whethe r this case may be continued by

the proposed pla intiffintervenor s even thoug h Nucor lacke d standing to maintain its cause of a ction. The c ourt conclude s that dismis sal is require d here by application of the fundame ntal principle that intervention ca

nnot cure a jurisdictional def ect in the or igina l suit. See U nited States ex re l. Tex. Po rtlan d Ce me nt C

o. v . M c Cor d , 2 33 U. S. 1 57 , 1 63 -6 4 ( 19 14 ); Simmons v. Inte rstate Commerce Comm’n , 716 F.2d 40 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). In Simmons , the Court of Appe als for the District of Columbia Circuit, upon considering an issue similar to that prese nted by this case, dismissed for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction a
cause of ac tion in a judicial proce edingbroug ht under the H obbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2344. 716 F.2d at 41. Plainti ff Simmons ini tiated the ac tion to obtain review of a n order issued by the Interstate Commerc e Commissi on (“I CC”) that reduc ed var ious regulatory repor ting require ments applicable to motor carr iers. Id. at 41-42. The Court concluded that plaintiff Simm ons, who filed his petition for direc t reviewof the I CC order in the Court of Appe als during the six ty -day

filing pe riod set forth in the Hobbs A ct, lacke d standing as a pe titioner beca use he was not a pa

rty to the I CC’s rulemaking proce edingthat was pre liminary to the issuance of

the contested or der. Id. Even thoug h the Court of Appe als ea rlier ha d g rante d the unopposed int e rv e nti on

mot ion un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 23 48 of Th e Inte rn a tio na l B ro the rh oo d o f T e amst e rs , Chauffe urs, Warehouse men and He lpers of A merica , the Court conclude d that the interve nor could not maintain the suit in the absence of the plaintiff Simmons. Id. at 42, 46. The Court explained that beca

use the interve nor fa iled to file its own petition or move for interve ntionCourt No. 07- 00174 P age 16

duringthe six ty -day

period for

initiating a c ause of

action under

the Hobbs Ac t, it lacked its own independe nt basis of jurisdiction. Id. at 46. The Court distinguished its holding f rom that of the Court of A ppeals for the Third Circuit in United States Steel Corp. v. EPA , 614 F.2d 843, 845 ( 3d. Cir. 1979), in which an intervenor

was pe rmitted to continue a suit afte r the pa rty who orig inally

provided va lid subject matter jurisdiction left the c ase. See Simmons , 716 F.2d at 46. I t also distinguished its holding from Courts of Appe als ca ses in which the inter venor itself pr ovided subject matter jurisdiction. See id. (c i t i n g At

k ins v . S tate Bd . o f E du c . o f N. C. , 418 F.2d 874, 876 ( 4th Cir. 1969), Fuller v. Vo lk, 351 F.2d 323, 328 ( 3d. Cir. 1965), Magdoff v. Saphin Television &Appliance, Inc

. , 228 F.2d 214, 215 ( 5th Cir. 1955), and Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore , Inc. , 212 F.2d 685, 688 ( 5th Cir. 1954)). Nu c or fi le d it s summo ns on

Ma y 21 , 2 00 7, the la st d ay

on wh ic h s uc h a

fi lin g wa s ti me ly within the thirty -day

period in which a

party could have soug ht judicial reviewof the F inal Results in t he Court of International Trade under 19 U .S.C. § 1516a(a)( 5). See19 U. S.C. § 1516a(a )(2) , (5). The motions t o intervene , althoug h timely under U SCI T Rule 24, wer e filed afte r the time per iod in which an orig inal plaintiff could have invoked the cour t’s jurisdiction
un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (c ) t o r e vie w the F ina l Re su lts . B e c a us e the on ly

pa rt y that atte mpt e d to inv ok e the su

bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n o f t he c ourt duri ngthat th ir

ty -d ay pe ri od la c ke d s tand ingto maintain a ca

use of a ction, that jurisdiction never attached to Nuc or’s c laim. See Simmons , 71 6 F .2 d at 46 . T he ri g ht t o inte rv e ne pr e su pp os e s a n a c tio n d uly br ou g ht a c c or din g to t

he te rm s of the statute unde r which the orig inal plaintiff broug ht its case. See United States ex rel. Tex.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 17

In arguing that Nucor’ s lack of sta nding r equire s the court to dismiss thi s action for lack 6 of jur isd ic tio n, de fe nd ant c ite s Bhullar v. United States , 27 CI T 532, 546, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1344 (2003), aff’d , 9 3 Fe d
. Ap p x . 2 1 8 (F ed
. C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). De f. ’s M o t . t o Di s m i s s 5 -6
. Al th o u gh su pp or tin g the g e ne ra l pr inc ipl e that a pla int if f’ s la c k o f s tand ingis a

jur isd ic tio na l de fe c t, Bhullar did not involve an issue direc tly analog ous to that presente d by the motions to i nterve ne. In Bhullar , the plaintiff, a stoc kholder in a Cana dian fore st products company , soug ht review un de r § 15 81 (c ) o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly , und e r § 15 81 (i ), of anti dumpi ngand

c ounte rv a ili ngduty deter minations on im ports of Canadia n softwood lumber, c laiming that the a ssessment of duties pursuant to the dete rminations cause d a dec rea se in the value of plaintiff’s stock. See 27 CI T 532, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1332. The Court of International Trade held, inte r a lia , that plaintiff lacke d standing beca use plaintiff “ share holder” was not an “ interested pa rty ” under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(d) a

nd 1677(9). 27 CI T at 546, 259 F . Supp. 2d at 1343-44. Portland Cement Co. , 2 33 U. S. at 16 3 ( statin g that “ [t]he se ri g hts to i nte rv e ne and to f ile a c la im, confe rre d by

the statute, pre suppose an a ction duly broug ht under its terms.”)
. 6 C. The Motion for an I

njunction Ag ainst L iquidation Must Be De nied Nu c or mov e s und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 15 16 a (c )( 2) fo r a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n a g a ins t liquidation of entries of subjec t mercha ndise produce d by

Stelco, Dofa sco, Sorevc o, and Do Sol Galva. Mot. for

Prelim. I nj. 2 (stating that “Plaintiff moves to enjoin liquidation as a matter of ri g ht p ur su ant t o 1 9 U .S. C. § 15 16 a (c )( 2) .” ). Th e c ourt may or de r a n in jun c tio n a g a ins t liquidation “[ i] n the ca se of a deter mination described in [19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)( 2)]” only “upon a
re qu e st b y

an inte re ste d p art

y fo r s uc h r e lie f a

nd a pr op e r s ho wi ngthat th e re qu e ste d r e lie f s ho uld be g ra nte d und e r t

he c ir c ums tanc e s. ” 19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (c )( 2) . T he de te rm inatio n c on te ste d in thi s c a se , th e F ina l Re su lts in a n a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w i ssu e d und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 75 (2 00 0) , is within the scope of § 1516a (a) (2) a nd Nucor , as a dome stic produce r of the like pr oduct, is an

“ int e re ste d p art

y ” a t le a st f

or purp os e s o f 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 (9 )( C) . N uc or , h ow e ve r, is una ble to satisfy the other r equire ment of § 1516a( c)( 2), which is “a proper showing that the re quested relief should be g rante d under the circ umstances.” Id.Court No. 07- 00174 P age 18

The c ontrolling c ircumstance is that subject matter jurisdiction did not attach to Nuc or’s
c a us e of a c tio n a nd , f or the re a so ns dis c us se d p re vio us ly , th e c ourt mus t di smi ss t

his c a se de sp ite the mot ion s to int e rv e ne . N uc or argue s th a t th e c ourt

sh ou ld gra

nt Nuc or ’s mot ion

to e njo in liquidation because it has satisfied the four require ments for a

preliminary

injunction, i.e. , that Nucor will be immediately

and irre para

bly injured, that there is a likelihood of succe ss on the merits, that the public intere st would be better se rved by the re lief re quested, a

nd that the balanc e
o f h ar d s h i p o nal l th e p art i es fa v o rs m o v an tNu co r. M o t . fo r P re l i m . In j
. 2 -3 (c i t i n g U.S. Ass’n of Imps. of Textiles &Apparel v. United States , 413 F.3d 1344, 1346 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005) and Ze nit h Radio Corp. v. United States , 710 F.2d 806, 809 ( Fe d. Cir. 1983)). The court is unable to a g ree with this arg ument. Be cause jurisdiction did not attach to Nucor’ s cause of ac tion, the court may not order e quitable re lief that is soug ht to preser ve the status quo by

preve nting liquidation of the
a ff e c te d e ntr ie s. III . C ONCL US I ON The c ourt conc ludes that subject matter jurisdiction does not ex ist over this action and that de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s th e re fo re mus t be g ra nte d. Th e c ourt

wi ll d e ny the mot ion s to intervene , deny

the motion of plaintiff for a preliminary

injunction, gr ant the motion of defe ndant to dismi ss for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction, and enter

judgme nt dismi ssing this ac tion.
/s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d ge Dated: September 26, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w YorkNU CO R C OR P OR AT ION , Plaintiff,
v. UN ITED STA TES ,

De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 07- 00174

JUDG MENT In c on fo rm ity

wi th t he Op ini on

iss ue d in thi s c a se on

thi s d ay , a

nd in c on sid e ra

tio n o f a ll paper s and proc eeding s here in, it is here by O R D ERED that defe ndant’s motion to dism iss this action for lack of subject matter jur isd ic tio n, fi le d o n Augus t 8, 20 07 , is GRANT ED , and it is further O R D ERED that this action be, and he reby is, dismi ssed.
/s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d ge Dated: September 26, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w YorkERRATUM

Nucor Corporati on v. United States , Court No. 07-00174, Slip Op. 07-144 (Sept. 26, 2007). On pa g e on e , in

the la st p ara g ra

ph , p le a se a dd

the na me “ Ste ph e n C. To sin i” so that th e la st pa ra g ra phre a ds : Peter D. Ke isler , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation Br anch, Civil Division, United St ates De partment of Justice ( Richard P. Schroede r , David S. Silverbrand , and Stephen C. Tosini ); Ma rk B . L e hn ard

t, Offic e of Chief

Counsel for Import Administration, United St ates De partment of Comme rc e , o f c ou

ns e l, f or de fe nd ant. October 2, 2007