Slip Op 09 - 52



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

: DI AMOND SAWBL ADES : MANUF ACTURERS C OAL I TI ON, : : Plaintiff, :

: v . : B e fo re : M USG RA VE , Senior Jud ge : Court No. 06-00247 UN I TE D ST AT ES, : : De fe nd a nt, :

: a n d : : ST. GOBA I

N AB RASI VES, I

NC., EHWA : DI AMOND I

NDUSTRI AL

CO., L TD., and : SHI NHAN D I AMOND I

NDUS. CO., L TD., :

: De fe nd a nt- I nte rv e no rs . : : OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [Mot ion to intervene de nied.] Dated: June 5, 2009 W ile yRe in L LP ( Da nie l B . P ic k

ar d ), for the plaintiff. Jame s M. Lyons , Gene ral Counsel, Neal J. Rey nolds , Assistant Gener al C ounsel, Offic e of th e G e n e r a l Co u n c il , U

. S. I n te r n a ti o n a l T r a d e Co mm is sion ( Charles A. St. Charl es ) for the de fe nd a nt. Ak in Gum p Strau ss H

au e r & Fe ld L

LP ( Sp e nc e r S

. G rif fit h , J . D av id P ar

k , Jarrod M. Goldfeder , Lisa W

. R os s , and V

a le r ie A . Slater ), counse l for the de fenda nt-intervenor s Ehwa Diamond I ndustrial Co., L td. and Shinhan Diamond I ndustrial Co., L td. Thompson Hine, LLP (

Lynn M. Fische r Fox ) f

or the de fe nd a nt- int e rv e no r S a int -G ob a in Abra sives, I nc.Court No. 06-00247 Pag e 2

Al sto n &Bi rd

LLP ( Kenneth G. W

eigel and El iza be th M. He in ), for the applica

nt Husqvarna Construction Products North Americ a, Inc.

MUSGRAVE, Senior J udg e: Husqvar na Construction Produc ts North Americ a, I nc. ha s fi le d a mot ion to joi n thi s ma tte r, fa mil iari ty wi th wh ic h is pr e su me d, a lon g sid e the de fe nd a ntintervenor s via intervention. The defe ndant-interve nors conse nt, but the motion i s opposed by the pla int if f D ia mon d Sa

wb la de s Ma

nu fa c ture rs Coa lit ion

(“ DSM C” ) a

nd the de fe nd a nt U .S. I nterna tional Trade Commi ssion (“I TC”).

Af te r i ssu a nc e of

Slip Op . 0 9- 5 ( Ja

n . 1 3 , 2 0 09 ), a

dis po sit ive op ini on , e a c h d e fe nd a ntinterve n o r ap p ealed the dec ision to t he Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (nos. 2009-1274, -1275). Sepa

rate ly , and pre viously , the U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce , I nternat i o nal Tra de Administration inst ructe d the U.S

. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of subject imports f

rom Kore a and China as of J anuar y 23, 2009, se e Di am on d S awb lad es a nd Pa rts Thereof from the People ’s Republic of China and the Republic of Kor ea: Notice of Court Dec ision Not In Harmony W

ith Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigat ions , 7 4 Fe d

. R eg. 6570, 6570-71 (F eb. 10, 2009). DSMC therea fter soug ht a writ of manda mus in thi s action, which application is still pending, to compel the I TC “to p u b l i s h n o t i ce of its final affir

mative mater ial threa t determination in the F eder al Reg ister.” Pl.’s Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 1.

By its mot ion, Husqvarna argues it ha s a rig ht to inter vene unde r USCI T Rule 24(a) b ec au s e i t “h as an inter est related to this action and an a dverse decision by this Court [ on the application for

mandamus] would result in the p remature asse ssment of antidumping duties that would have a signific ant economic impact on Husqvarna .” Partial Consent Mot. to I nterve ne ¶ 2. Alterna tively , Husqvarna argues it should be permitted to intervene under USCI T Rules 24(b) a ndCourt No. 06-00247 Pag e 3

28 U. S.C. § 2 63 1(

j) “ be c a us e it w ou ld b e a dv e rs e ly

a ff e c te d o r a g g ri e ve d b y

a de c isi on on [DSM C’ s] Petition and because Husqvarna ’s interve ntion would not unduly delay or pre judice t h i s Court’s adjudication of the orig inal parties’ rig hts.” Id. ¶ 3.

Pur su a nt t o s e cti on

26 31 (j )( 1) (B ) o f T itl e 28 of the Un ite d St a te s Co de , in a c ivi l action commenc ed under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, “only an inter es t ed party

who was a

party to the proce eding in connec tion with which the matter a rose may intervene , and such person may intervene

as a matter of rig ht

. . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B ) (2006)

. See 19 U. S.C. § 1 51 6a , ( 20 06 ); see als o JCM, L td. v. United States , 21 0 F .3 d 13 57 , 13 60 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 0) ; Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. United States , 3 2 CI T _

__ , _

__ , 5 80 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 34 2, 13 43 -4 4 ( 20 08 ); Dofasco Inc., v. United Sta te s, 31 CI T

__

_,

__ _, 51 9 F

. Sup p. 2d 12 84 , 12 86 (2 00 7) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States , 2 CI T 254, 529 F. S u p p . 664 (1981). Ac cording ly , beca use this action was

c omm e nc e d to c on te st a

n a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e e din g purs ua nt t o 1 9 U .S. C. § 15 16 a , a nd beca us e Husqvarna

conce des that i t was not a “party to the proce eding ” within the meaningof 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1) (B ), Husqvar

na is statutorily

barr ed from intervening in this m atter. See Quingdao , 580 F. S up p. at 13 45 -4 6; Dofasco , 5 19 F . Su pp . 2 d a t 12 86 ; s e e a ls o O n ta r io F o r es t I n d u s . A s s oc. v. United States , 30 CI T 1117, 1130 n.12, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1322 n.12 (2006)

.

The motion must be, and it here by is, denied. So ordere d. /s/ R. Kenton Musg rave Da t ed : J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 9 R

. KE NT ON M US GR AV E , S en i o r J u d ge New Y or, Ne w York