GERDAU AMERI STEELCORP., Plaintiff,
v. UN I TE D ST AT ES, De fe nd ant,

and I CDAS CEL I K ENERJITERSANE ve ULASI M SANAYI , A.S., Def endant- Interve nor. Slip Op 06-125 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Be fo re : Gr ego ry

W
. C arm an , J u d ge Court No. 04-00608

[Defenda nt’s motion to di smiss for lack of jur isdiction gra nted.] Br ic k fie ld, Bu rc he tte

, R itt s &Sto ne , P C ( Damon E. Xe nopoulos ), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff. Peter D. Ke isler , A ssi sta

nt Atto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; David M. Cohen , D ir e c tor ; JeanneE. Davidson , Deputy

Direc tor; David S. Silverbrand, Trial Attorne y , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civ il D ivi sio n, U. S. D e pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e ; Robert E. Nielsen , O f C o un s e l , S e n i o r

A tt o r n e y, Offic e of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerc e, for De fe nd ant. Arnold &Porter LLP (

Lawrence A. Sc hneider

), Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or De fe nd antInterve nor. Dated: August 10 , 2006
OP IN ION Carm an, Jud ge : In this action, Plainti ff Ge rdau Ameristeel Corpor ation (“Plaintiff” or “Ge rdau” ) cha lleng es De fenda nt United States Depa

rtment of Commerce ’s (“ Def endant” orCourt No. 04-00608 Pag e 2

19 U. S.C. § 1 51 4( a )( 5) pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 1 [D] ecisions of the Customs Service, inc luding the le g ality of all orde rs and “ Comme rc e ” ) f

ina l r e su lts inCertain Steel Concrete Re inforcing Bars from T urkey , 6 9 Fe d
. R eg. 64 ,7 31 (D e p’ t Co mme rc e No v. 8, 20 04 ) ( “ F ina l Re su lts ” ). De fe nd ant m ov e s to dis mis s th is action for lack of jurisdiction. Bec ause a ll of the subject entr ies at issue have been liquidated, this Court l acks jurisdiction to hea r this matter. Ac cording ly , Def endant’ s motion i s g rante d, and this matter is dismi ssed. P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY On May 21 , 2 00 3, Comme rc e ini tiate d a n a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w o n s te e l c on c re te reinfor cingbars ( “re bar” ) fr om Turkey
. Certain Steel Concrete Re inforcing Bars from T urkey , 68 Fe d. Reg . 27,781 (De p’t Commerce May 21, 2003) (initiation of antidumping r eview) . The period of r eview is Apr il 1, 2002, through Ma rch 31, 2003. O n May

5, 2004, Commerce issued its preliminary

results. Certain Steel Concrete Re inforcing Bars from T urkey , 6 9 Fe d
. R eg. 25,063 (De p’t Commerce May 5, 2004) (pr eliminary

results). On Nove mber 8, 2004, Commerc e issued its final determination. Fi na l R esu lts , 69 Fe d. Reg . at 64,731. On De cembe r 17, 2004, and F ebrua

ry 11, 2005, the United States B urea u of Customs and Borde r Protection (“ Customs ”) liq uid ate d s ub

je c t e ntr ie s. On De c e mbe r 2 9, 20 04 , Pl a int if f f ile d a tim e ly a c tio n, c ha lle ng ingthe c omp any -s pe c if ic dumpi ngmarg in o f 0 .0 0 p e rc e nt ad valorem a ssi g ne d to I CD AS C e lik En e rj i T e rs ane ve Ul a sim Sanayi, A.S. (“I CDAS”), which is De fenda nt-Interve nor in this case. O n September 7, 2005, Def endant moved to dismiss pursuant to USCI T Rule 12(b)( 1) for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the re levant entr ies wer e prope rly liquidated pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) ( 2000). 1Court No. 04-00608 Pag e 3

finding s enteringinto the same, as to –

. . . (5 ) the liq

uid atio n o r r e liq

uid atio n o f a

n e ntr y , o r r e c on c ili atio n a s to the issues containe d there in, or any modification there of;

. . . shall be final a

nd conclusive upon a ll persons (includingthe United States and any of fi c e r t he re of ) u nle ss a pr ote st i s f

ile d in a c c or da nc e wi th t his se c tio n, or

un le ss a c ivi l a c tio n c onte sti ngthe de nia l of a pr ote st, in who le or in part, is commenc ed in the United States Court of International Trade . . . within the time prescr ibed . . . . 19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a (a )( 2) (B )( iii ) s tate s, in r e le va nt p art : 2 (a) Review of de termination

. . . (2) Review of de terminations on rec ord

. . . (B ) Reviewa

ble deter minations The de terminations which may be conte sted under su bp ara g ra ph(A ) a re a s f oll ow s:

. . . (iii) A final de termination . . . by the administeringauthority

or the Commission under se ction 1675 of this titl e. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW When consideringa motion to dism iss, a court “ must assume all well-pled f actua l alleg ations are true a

nd indulge in all rea sonable infe renc es in favor of the nonmovant.” Gould, Inc. v . United States , 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 ( Fe d. Cir. 1991). The thre shold question for any court, howe ver, be g ins with jurisdi ction. J URI S DI CT I ON Statutory authority dictates this Court’s jurisdiction. Pl aintiff bring s its claim under section 516A of the Tarif f Ac t of 1930, as ame nded, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a )(2) (B )(iii) (2000)
. 2 Compl. ¶ 1. This C ourt has exclusive jurisdiction to review c ases pr operly brought underCourt No. 04-00608 Pag e 4

28 U. S.C. § 1 58 1( c ) gra

nts : 3 The Court of International Trade shall have e x clusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenc ed under section 516A of the Tarif f Ac t of 1930. 19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a

purs ua nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (c ) ( 20 00 ). De fe nd ant, ho we ve r, c ha lle ng e s th is 3 Court’s subject matter jur isdiction and asserts Plaintiff’s c laim is render ed moot by proper liquidation. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def .’s Mot.”) at 1-2. I t is we ll e sta

bli sh e d th at “ liq

uid atio n [of

su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise ] el imi nate s th e on ly
reme dy available . . . for a

n incorre ct re view dete rmination by deprivingthe trial cour

t of the ability to assess dumping duties . . . . ” Ze nit h Radio Corp. v. United States , 710 F.2d 806, 810 (F e d. Cir . 1 98 3) . F ur

the rm or e , w ith out an in

jun c tio n, liq

uid atio n me ans an inte re ste d p art y wi ll “for ever lose its statutory

rig ht” to challeng e an a dminist rative r eview. The Timken Co. v. United States , 6 CI T 75, 80, 569 F. Supp. 65 (1983)
. To ba lanc e thi s p ote nti a l in jus tic e , a n inte re ste d p art

y , o n p ro pe r f

ound atio n, may

re qu e st a pre liminary

injunction barringliquidation. SKF USA Inc. v . United States , 2 8 C I T _ _, 31 6 F. Sup p. 2d 13 22 , 1 32 6- 27 (2 00 4) ; cf
. Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States , 355 F.3d 1297, 1310 (F ed. Cir. 2004) (not r equiringan injunction wher e suit was not brought under sec tion 516A of the Ta ri ff Ac t) . B e c a

us e liq uid atio n p e rm ane ntl y

de pr ive s a

pa rt y of the op po rt

un ity to c onte st the re su lts of

an a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w b y re nd e ri ngmoo t th e c a

us e of a c tio n, c ourt s r outin e ly issue preliminary

injunctions in antidumping c ases . SKF, 31 6 F . Su pp . 2 d at 13 27 , 1 33 2; see also Nucor Corp. v. United States , 29 CI T __, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1348 (2005) (“pr eliminary inj un c tio ns re str a ini ngthe liq uid atio n o f [p e ri od

of re vie w] e ntr ie s a

re so ught a

nd g ra nte d a lmo st ref lexi vely in case s . . . challeng ing the outcome of a dminist rative r eviews” ). The inter estedCourt No. 04-00608 Pag e 5

party , howeve r, must reque st an injunction. I t is undisput ed that such a reque st was neve r made in this case. De f.’s Mot. at 3; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Resp.”) at 9. All parties to this action conc ede that the subject entrie s have be en liquidated. Pl.’s Resp. at 5; Def .’s Mot. at 2; Def.- Interve nor I CDAS’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dis miss at 1. Moreove r, this Court notes that Pl aintiff had suf ficient notice that the suspension of liquidation of subject e ntries was lifted upon publica tion of the Fi na l R esu lts in the Fe dera l Reg ister. Def .’s Mo t. at 3; Int’l Trading Co. v. United States , 4 12 F .3 d 1 30 3, 13 09 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 5) . B e c a us e Plaintiff’s cause of ac tion is rendere d moot by liquidation of the subject entrie s, this C ourt lacks subject matter jur isdiction over this case.

C ONCL US I ON F or the re a so ns state d h e re in, thi s Co ur t ho lds tha

t it la c ks su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n in this action and g rants De fenda nt’s motion to di smiss. According ly , this Court need not rea ch the merits of the c ase, a

nd there fore , the motion for judg ment on the ag ency rec ord bef

ore this Court i s h e r e b y r e n d e r e d

m o o t . J u d g m e n ts h a l l b e e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y.

/s/ Greg ory

W. C arma

n Gre g ory W. C arma

n Dated: August 10, 2006 New Y ork, Ne w York