Slip Op. 09-45 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________ : U N IT E D S T A T E S S T E E L : CO RPO RA TI ON : A N D : ARCEL ORMI TTAL

USA, I NC., :

: Pla int if fs , :

: an d : : NUCOR CORPOR ATI ON : : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Jud ge Plaintiff-Interve nor, : Consol. Court No. 07-00475 : v . : : UNI TED STATES, : : De fe nd ant, : : an d : : CORUS S TAAL

BV , : : Def endant- Interve nor. : : ____________________________________:
OP IN ION [Defenda nt and Def

endant- Interve nor’s Motions to Dismis s are g rante d.]
Dated: Ma

y 18, 2009
Sk ad de n A rp s S

late Me ag

he r &Flom , LLP

( Robert E. Lighthizer, Jeffrey D. G errish, Ellen J. Schneide r, and Luke A. Me isner) for Plaintiff United States Steel Corpora tion.Consol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 2

The “ dumping mar g in” re fer s to the amount by which the nor

mal value e x cee ds the 1 export price or c onstructed e x port price , expressed func tionally as DM = N V - (E P or CEP). 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 7( 35 )( A) . T he “ we ig hte d- ave ra g e dumpi ngmarg in” e xpre sse s th e dumpi ngmarg in a s a pe rc e nta g e and

is d e te rm ine d b y

div idi ngthe a g g re g a te dumpi ngmarg ins of a sp e c if ic exporter or produc er by

the ag g reg ate e x port or construc ted export prices of suc h exporter or produce r. § 1677(35) (B ). Offse tting is the pra ctice where by Commerce, when ca lculating the numerator in the weig hted-avera g e dumping equation, off sets sales made at less than fa ir value w ith fair value sales. Z eroingis a prac tice that is rela ted to, but disti nct from, of fsetting , wher eby

Commerce g ives the sales ma

rg ins of merc handise sold at or a bove fa ir value pr ices a

n assumed value of zero. See Corus Staal BV v. De p’t of Commerce , 3 95 F .3 d 1 34 3, 13 45 -4 6 ( F e d. Cir . 2 00 5) . With zeroing , Commerce use s only the sales mar g ins of merc handise sold at less than f air va lue price s to calculate the fina l dumping mar g in. Se e id

. Finally , an “a s such,” or

fac ial, challeng e conte sts the ge nera l policy to use a law , regulation or prac tice, whe rea s an “a s applied” c halleng e ar g ues ag ainst its application in a p art i cu l ar p ro ce ed i n g. Ste war t an d S

te war t ( Te re nc e P. Ste war t and W ill iam A. Fe nn e ll) for

Plaintiff Arce lorMittal Steel USA, Inc. W ile yRe in ( Tim oth

yC. B rig htb ill) for Plaintiff-Interve nor Nuc or Corporation. Mi c ha e l F

. H e rtz , D e puty

As sis tant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; JeanneE. Davidson , D ir e c tor ; Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice ( Claudia Burke ) f or De fe nd ant Unit e d St a te s. Ste pto e &J oh ns on LLP

( Richard O. Cunningham , Joel D. Kaufman , Alice A. Kipel , and J am ie B. Beabe r ) for De fenda

nt-Interve nor Corus Staal B V.
BA RZ ILA Y, JU DG E: Plaintiffs United States Steel Corporation (“U .S. St eel” ) and Ar c e lorMitta l U SA, Inc . ( “ Ar c e lorMitta l” ) ( c oll e c tiv e ly , th e “ Pla int if fs ” ) c ha lle ng e the U. S. Depa rtment of Commerce (“Commerc e”) decision to use off setting to c alculate the weightedave ra g e dumpi ngmarg ins a s su c h a nd a s a pp lie d in c e rt a in a nti dumpi ngduty

pr oc e e din g s, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Antidumping Procee dings: Calculation of the W eighted- 1 Ave rage Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Inve stigati on; Final Modification , 71 Fe d.Consol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 3

Commerce twic e dela

y ed the implementation of the Section 123 De termination , with the 2 chang e in policy

ultimately

taking eff

ect on F ebrua

ry 22, 2007. An tid

um ping Pro c e e dings : Calculation of

the W eighted-Av erage D umping Margins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in Effective D ate of Final Modification , 72 Fe d. Reg . 1,704, 1,704 (De p’t Commerce J an. 16, 20 07 ); Antidumping Pr oc e e dings : C alc ula tio n o

f th e W e igh te d- Av e rageDu mp ing

Ma rg ins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in EffectiveDate of Final Modification , 72 Fe d. Reg . 3,783, 3,783 (De p’t Commerce J an. 26, 2007). Corus filed a Motion to Dismiss on Februa ry 22, 2008 in response to U.S. Steel’s 3 c omp la int . U .S. Ste e l r e sp on de d to Cor us ’s mot ion , b ut t

he c ourt sta y e d a de c isi on on tho se proce eding s pendinga motion to consolidate Court Nos. 07-170, 07-201, 07- 475, and 08-015. On September

4, 2008, the cour

t consolidated Court Nos. 07-475 a nd 08-015 to form the c urre nt action. De fenda

nt has since moved the court to dismiss the case he re, w ith all other parties f iling their re spective r esponse br iefs. The court notes that while it addr esses only Def endant’ s arguments by

name be low, it also considers Corus’s c ontentions, which mirror those of the United States, in its analy sis. In Co ns ol. Court

No . 0 7- 17 0, Pla int if

fs c on te st C omm e rc e ’s Section 123 De termination 4 un de r a n a lte rn a tiv e jur isd ic tio na l pr ov isi on , 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (c ), bo th a s su c h a nd a s a pp lie d to th e s p e c i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o na d dr e s s i n g th e s u b j e c tm e r c h an d i s e . U
. S
. S t e e l B r . 4
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, Plaintiffs challeng e the f

inal results of the Sec tion 129 determination that resulted in the revoc ation of the a

ntidumping duty

order on the subject mer chandise

. Id .; Implem entation of the Findings of the W

TO Panel in US–Zeroing ( EC) : Notice of Dete rminations under Section 129 of theUrugua

yRo un d A gr e e me nts Ac t an d R e v oc ati on s a nd Pa rti al R e v oc ati on s o

f Ce rta in An tid um ping D uty

Or de rs , 72 Fe d. Reg . 25,261, 25,262 (De p’t Commerce May 4, 2007) Reg . 77,722, 77,722 (De p’t Commerce Dec . 27, 2006) (“ Section 123 De termination ”). 2 Spe c if ic a lly , Pl a int if

fs a lle g e that Co mme rc e ’s Section 123 De termination , and the a pplication of that deter mination to a specific a

ntidumping investig ation, is n ot i n a c c or da nc e wi th l aw. U. S. Steel Compl. ¶¶ 20-22; Ace lorMittal Com pl. ¶¶ 18-21. Nucor Corpor ation (“Nucor” ) and Corus Sta a l B V ( “ Cor

us ” ) j oin a s a Pla int if f- and De fe nd ant- Inte rv e no r, re sp e c tiv e ly , p ur su ant t o USCI T R. 24. Her e, De fenda nt United States reque sts that the court, under USCI T R. 12(b)(1) 3 and (b) (5), dismiss the Plainti ffs’ c omplaints, alleg ing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the c laims beca use (1) the cha lleng e her e esse ntially contests the fina l results of a Section 129 dete rmination, (2) no pr ovision of the United States Code provides f or the judicial 4Consol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 4

(“ Section 129 De termination ”). Plaintiffs filed the ir complaints here under § 1581( i) afte r Def endant a nd Def endant- Interve nor indicate d they would challeng e the Court’s a bility to hear Plaintiffs’ claims conc erningthe Section 123 De termination under § 1581( c) in Consol. Court No. 07-170. U.S. Steel B r. 5. re v i ew o f aS ec t i o n1 2 3 d et erm i n at i o n , (3 ) t h e U n i t edS t at es h as n o twa i v edi t s s o v er ei gn immunit y from beingsubject to such a c laim, and (4) the Section 123 De termination is not an age n cy ac t i o nun d er

th e A dm i n i s tra t i v e P ro ce d ure Ac t(“ AP A” ). Ad d i t i o n al l y , De fe n d an t s al l ege that Plaintiffs (5) lac k standing and (6) have othe rwise f ailed to state a

claim upon which r elief may be g rante d under U SCI T R. 8(a). T he cour t gr ants Def

endant a nd Def endant- Interve nor’s Motions to Dis miss for rea sons expl ained he rein. I. Bac kgr ound A. Sect ions 123 an d 129 of the Ur uguay Rou nd Agreem ents Act In enac ting Sec tions 123 and 129 of the Ur ug uay Round Ag ree ments Act (“ URAA”) , Congr ess established two pr ocedur es by which an a dverse decision fr om the World Trade Or g anizatio n ( “ WTO ” ) D isp ute Se ttl e me nt P ane l or Ap pe llate B od

y may be imp le me nte d into domestic law. A Section 123 deter mination amends, resc inds, or modifies an ag ency regulation or pra ctice that is found to be inconsistent with any of the Ur ug uay Round Ag ree ments. 19 U. S.C. § 3 53 3( g )( 1) . U nd e r t his sc he me , th e Un ite d St a te s T ra de Re pr e se ntativ e (“ UST R” ) i s require d to consult with the appropriate congressional a nd private se ctor a dvisory committees, as
we ll a s to pr ov ide an o pp or tun ity fo r p ub lic c omm e nt, be fo re de te rm ini ngwh e the r a nd ho w t o implement the ag ency

regulation or prac tice at issue. Id . As part of the consultation proce ss, the USTR is required to provide the rele vant congressional c ommitt ees w ith a repor t that describe s “the pr oposed modification, the r easons f or the modification, and a summary of the a dviceConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 5

obtained” f

rom the private sector a dvisory committees. Id . at § 3 53 3( g )( 1) (D ). To take e ff e c t, the final modification must ultimately be published in the F eder al Reg ister. Id . at § 3533(g )(1) (F ). A Section 129 deter

mination amends, resc inds, or modifies the application of an ag ency regulation or prac tice in a spe cific a ntidumping, counter

vailing duty , or saf

eguards pr ocee ding. In p art ic ula

r, a Se c tio n 1 29 de te rm inatio n a lte rs a sp e c if ic a g e nc y de te rm inatio n th a t is fo un d to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Antidumping Ag ree ment (“ AD Agreem ent ”), the Ag ree ment on Subsidi es and Counter vailing Me asure s, or the Safe g uards Agre e me nt. 19 U. S.C. § 3 53 8( a )( 1) , ( b) (1 ). Un de r t his pr oc e dure , th e UST R mu st c on su lt w ith the re levant congressional c ommitt ees a nd reque st in writing that the pe rtinent ag ency issue a new de termination consistent with the finding s set forth in the WTO Panel or Appe llate B ody Report. Id . at § 3538(a )(1) , (a) (3)- (5), ( b)(1) -(3) . Intere sted parties ma y also submit written comments on the propose d modification and, whe re a ppropriate , ask for

an administrative hear ing on the matter. Id . at § 3538(d). ASection 129 deter mination takes eff

ect on or afte r the date on wh ic h th e UST R di re c ts the a g e nc y to i mpl e me nt t

he de te rm inatio n, in who le or in p art , and whe n Commerce publishes the de termination in the Fe dera l Reg ister. Id . at § 3538(c )(1) -(2)

. The Court has e x clusive jurisdiction over a ll civil actions commence d under se ction 516A of the Ta

riff A ct of 1930, a s amende d, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, to contest a Section 129 deter mination. § 1516a(a) (2)( B) (vii); § 1581(c) . In contra st, no provision of the United StatesConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 6

Def endant e mphasizes that the absenc e of suc h a jurisdictional g rant in the United States 5 Cod e de mon str a te s th a t Co ng re ss d e c lin e d to wa ive its so ve re ig n immun ity ov e r c ha lle ng e s to Section 123 deter

minations, and as such, those a g ency proce eding s are not review able a g ency actions under

the APA. Def

. Br . 10-11; Def

. Reply Br . 3. Cod e , in c lud ing§ 1 51 6a , e xpre ssl y g ra nts thi s o r a

ny fe de ra l c ourt

jur isd ic tio n o ve r c ha lle ng e s to a Section 123 dete rmination. 5 B. Th e Original Antid um pin g Duty Order & Sub sequent Developm ents On Novembe r 29, 2001, af ter re ceivingpetitions from domestic produce rs to initiate an inv e sti g a tio n o n th e su

bje c t me rc ha

nd ise and makin g a pr e lim ina

ry fi nd ingthat su c h me rc ha nd ise was dumped in the U .S., Com merc e issued an a ntidumping duty

order cover ing hot- rolled ca

rbon steel flat pr oducts from the N ether lands. Antidumping Duty Order: Ce rtain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Nethe rlands , 66 Fe d. Reg . 59,565, 59,566 (De p’t Commerce Nov. 29, 2001). Commerce used zeroingto calculate the fina l dumping mar g in for the subjec t
merc handise. Not ic e of F ina l D e te rm ina tio n o

f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Va lue ; C e rta in HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands , 66 Fe d. Reg . 50,408, 50,409 (De p’t Comme rc e Oc t. 3 , 2 00 1) ; Issues and De cision Memorandum for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Notice of Final Determ ination of Sal es at Less Than Fair Value ( A-421-807) , A-421-807 ( Oct. 3, 2001), available at

2001 WL1168309, at *7-8. The Eur opean Communities therea fter c halleng ed Commerce ’s use of zer oing in se vera l antidumping investig ations and administrative re views bef ore the WTO, including the investigation that resulted in the impositi on of an a ntidumping duty

order on hot-rolled ca

rbon steel flat pr oducts from the N ether lands. SeeRequest for Consultations by the Europe anConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 7

A deter mination by

the WTO Dispute Settlement Body that a law, r egulation, or 6 measure of a WTO Membe r violates a WTO a g ree ment “as suc h” mea ns that the “Membe r’s c on du c t – n ot o nly

in a pa rt ic ula r i ns tanc e that ha s o c c ur

re d, but in

futur e sit uatio ns a s w e ll –

wi ll ne c e ssa ri ly be inc on sis te nt w iththat Me mbe r’ s WT O o bli g a tio ns .” Re po rt of the Ap pe llate Body , United States – Sunset Rev iews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS 268/AB/R, at ¶ 172 (Nov. 29, 2004), available at http:// www.wto.or g /eng lish/t ratop_e /dispu_e/cases_e /ds268_e.htm. I n contra st, an “a s applied” deter mination means that the WTO Member’ s “application of a g ener al rule to a specific set of fac ts” is inconsistent with that Member’s WTO obligations. Se e id . at 3 n.22. Communi ties, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodologies for Calculating Dumping Ma rg ins ( “Ze ro ing ”) , WT/DS 294/1, at 4 (June 19, 2003). On Octobe r 31, 2005, a WTO Panel fo un d C o m m er ce ’s u s e o f z er o i n g i ni n v es t i gat i o n s i n v o l v i n g co mp ar i s o n s o f w ei gh t ed -a v er age normal value s to weig hted-avera g e U.S. price s to be inconsistent with U.S. obli g ations under the AD Agree ment . SeeReport of the Pane l, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calc ula tin g D um

ping M ar gin s ( “Ze ro ing ”) , ¶¶ 8.2- 8.4, WT/DS 294/R (Oct. 31, 2005) (“ Panel Re po rt ”). Spec ifically , the WTO Panel found that zeroingviolates the AD Ag re e me nt as such, and as a pplied in the specific investigations at issue. Id . The Appe llate B ody upheld the WTO 6 Pane l’ s d e te rm inatio n o n a pp e a l and we nt f ur the r, sta tin g that Co mme rc e ’s us e of zer oin g in
cer tain administrative re views wa s also inconsistent with the AD Agree ment . SeeReport of the Appellate B ody , United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ( “Ze ro ing ”) , ¶¶ 132- 35, 263(a) (i), WT/DS294/AB/R (Apr. 18, 2006). On Dec ember

27, 2006, in response to the Pa ne l R e po rt , Co mme rc e ann ounc e d th a t a s a g ener al policy

it would use offsettingand no long er zero ne g ative mar g ins in antidumpi ng investigations invol ving c omparisons of “a vera g e-to-a

vera g e” pr ices. Section 123 Determ ination , 71 Fe d. Reg . at 77,722. Commerce noted that the depa rtment’s newpolicy
wo uld sp e c if ic a lly a pp ly in ( 1) the re c a lc ulatio n o f t he dumpi ngmarg ins in t

he “ sp e c if

icConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 8

antidumping investig ations challeng ed by the EC in [ the Pa ne l R e

po rt ]” and (2) a ll then curre nt and future investigations invol ving c omparisons of ave rag e-to-a vera g e pric es. Id . at 77,725. Notably , the Section 123 De termination did no t e mbr a c e a ll t

he fi nd ing s o f t

he WTO Ap pe llate Bo dy , s t at i n g th atth e c h an ge i np o l i cy ap p l i edo n l y

t o i n v es t i gat i o n s th atu s e a v er age -t o -a v er age compar isons and did not ex tend to any other kind of investig ation or administrative re view. Id

. at 77,724. On May 4, 2007, Commerce implemente d its findings made under Sec tion 129 of the URAA at the r equest of the USTR. Section 129 De termination , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 25,261. In the Se c tio n 1 29 pr oc e e din g , Co mme rc e re c a lc ulate d th e dumpi ngmarg in o n th e su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise with the use of of

fsetting , finding that it decre ased f rom 2.59 % to zero. Id . at 25,262. The ag ency , there fore , revoke d the antidumping or der on hot-r olled car bon steel fr om the Nether lands, eff

ective f or entrie s of the subjec t mercha ndise made on or

afte r April 23, 2007. Id

. I mpo rt antl y , Pl a int if

fs argue d d

ur ingthe Se c tio n 1 29 pr oc e e din g that Co mme rc e ’s Section 123 Determ ination was not in ac corda nce w ith law beca

use the statute pr ohibits t he use of offse tting and re quires zeroing

. Issues and De cision Memorandum for the Final Results of t he Sec tion 129 Determ inations , A-122-838, A -421-807, A- 427-820, A-428- 830, A-475-829, A -412-822, A- 401- 806, A-469-807, A -475-820, A- 423-808, A-475- 824, A-475-818 ( Apr. 9, 2007), D ef. B r. App. B at 5-7 (“ Section 129 De termination Issues and Dec ision Memorandum ”). D efe ndant, howeve r, reje cted that notion, stating that the Section 129 De termination was c oncer ned only with bring ing the spec ific investig ations at issue in the Pa ne l R e po rt into conformity

with U.S. obligations under the AD Agree ment . See id . at 9-11.Consol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 9 II. Stand ard of Review Th e Court

a ssume s th a t a ll und isp ute d f a c ts a lle g e d in

the c omp la int

are tr ue and mus t draw all rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff’s f avor when dec iding a

motion to di smiss based upon either la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction or fa ilure to state a c laim for which r elief ma y be g rante d. See H

enkev. United States , 6 0 F .3 d 7 95 , 7 97 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 5) ; Gould, Inc. v . United States , 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 ( Fe d. Cir. 1991). A f un dame nta l qu e sti on

in a ny a c tio n b e fo re the Court

is whe the r s ub

je c t matte r e xists over the claims prese nted. See Ste el Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). “Without j urisdiction the court c annot proc eed at all in any cause . J urisdiction is power to declar e the law , and whe n it cease s to ex ist, the only function re maining to the c ourt is that of announcingthe fa ct and dismissing the c ause.” Ex pa rteMc Car

dle , 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868). The pa rty invoking the Court’ s jurisdiction bears the bur den of e stablishing it. Se e Nor sk Hy dr o Can., Inc. v. U

nited States , 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 ( Fe d. Cir. 2006). Th e Un ite d St a te s is immun e fr om s uit un le ss i t c on se nts to b e su e d, and “ the te rm s o f i ts consent to be sue d in any court de fine that c ourt’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” Blue po rt Co., LL C v. United States , 533 F.3d 1374, 1378 ( Fe d. Cir. 2008) (quotations & citations omitted). To deter

mine whether

there is a waive r of sove reig n immunit y , the Court must discern the expressed intent of Cong ress a s it appear s in the statute, with ambiguities re solved in favor of the sovere ign. See U

nited States v. W

illiams , 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995). F ina lly , a ssumin g that a ll the a lle g a tio ns in t he c omp la int

are tr ue , a pla int if f s tate s a
c la im u po n w hic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d w he n it

a lle g e s f a c ts t hat are “ e no ug h to ra ise a ri g ht t o relief above the speculative level . . . .” Be ll A tl. Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)Consol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 10

(citations omitted). Thoug h detailed f actua l alleg ations are not require d, “more than labels a nd conclusions, and a

formulaic r ecitation of the elements of a cause of ac tion” are neede d for the plaintiff’s complaint to provide the defe ndant with fair notice of its claims and survive a motion to dismi ss for fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. Se e id

. III. Discussion A. Sub jec t Mat terJurisdi ction: The Section 123 Determ inati on For the first time the Court must decide whe ther a challeng e to a Sec tion 123 deter mination as such, and a s applied in a pa rticular pr ocee ding, f

alls within it s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. Def

endant a sks the court to look to the true nature of the action, which alleg edly is a cha lleng e to Commerce ’s Section 129 De termination , a nd dis mis s Pla int if

fs ’ complaint beca

use that kind of cla im is properly broug ht only

under § 1581( c). D ef. B r. 6, 8-9. Alternatively , Def

endant a rgues that a Sec tion 123 determination is not subject to judicial review, g iven its absence from the list of re viewable ag ency deter minations under § 1516a. De f. B r. 7, 9- 10. Def endant a lso claims that the failure of Cong ress to provide f or judicial re view of suc h ag ency deter minations, in contrast to its t reatment of Section 129, demonstrate s that the United States has not waived its sover eig n immunit y as to suits challeng ing a

Section 123 deter

mination. Def Br . 10-11. F inally , even if a cha lleng e to the Section 123 De termination c ou ld c on c e iva bly fit within the confines of § 1581( i), Def endant a rgues that such de terminations have no independe nt leg al ef

fec t and that there is no ag ency action her e under

the APA bec ause the deter mination does not ag g rieve or af fec t Plainti ffs. De f. B r. 7, 9-10. Chapter 95 of

Title 28 of the United States Code c ontains Congr ess’s jurisdictional g rant to t he Court
. The fir st section, § 1581, is tit led “Civil actions ag ainst the United States andConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 11

ag encie s and off

icer s thereof

,” consistingof subsec tions (a) throug h (j). Ea ch subsec tion of § 1581 “delineates particula r laws ove r which the Court of International Trade may asser t jurisdiction.” Nat’l Corn Grow ers Ass’n v. B aker , 8 4 0 F
. 2 d 1 5 4 7 , 1 5 5 5 ( F e d

. C i r . 1 9 8 8 )

. In § 1581(i), Cong ress provide d the Court with broad re sidual jurisdiction over civil actions that arise out of

import transac tions. See Conoc o, Inc. v . United States Foreign-Trade Zones Bd. , 18 F.3d 1581, 1588 ( Fe d. Cir. 1994). Howe ver, a cave at to subsection (i) pr events the Court fr om
e sta bli sh ingjur isd ic tio n o ve r a c ha lle ng e to a

n a nti dumpi ngpr oc e e din g that is oth e rw ise revie wable unde r § 1516a( a). § 1581( i). Thus, the subsec tions of § 1581 must be read in c oncer t
and a lit ig ant m ay

on ly inv ok e the Cou

rt ’s jur isd ic tio n und e r § 15 81 (i ) i f ( 1) jur isd ic tio n is unavailable under a ll other subsections of § 1581, or ( 2) jurisdiction is available unde r anothe r subsection of § 1581, but the re lief provided by that subsection is manifestly inadequate. § 1 58 1( i) ; see NEC Corp. v. United States , 1 51 F .3 d 1 36 1, 13 68 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) . Wh e re the re is doubt over the Court’s a

bility to hear a par ticular c laim, the Court must ex amine the true nature of the a ction to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the issue. Se e Nor

sk Hydro Can., Inc

. , 472 F.3d at 1355. The Court has r ecognized that a fac ial challeng e to a statute or regulation is differe nt from a cla im that a law, as a

pplied, is contrar

y to law, involving unique le g al questions and distinct
reme dies. See , e.g. , Impac t Steel Can. Corp. v. United States , 31 CI T ___, ___, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1302 (2007) ( “

Impac t Steel ”); Parkdale I nt’l, Ltd. v. United States , 31 CI T ___, ___, 508 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1347-48 (2007) (“ Pa rk da le ” ). A f

a c ia l c ha lle ng e inv olv e s a c la im that a pr a c tic e or

ru le is per se illega l, and could not be statutorily valid under a

ny circ umstances. See Pa rk da le , 3 1 C I T at_

_ _ n . 5 , 5 0 8 F. S u

p p . 2 d at1 3 4 7 n . 5
. Inco n tra s t , an as ap p l i edch al l en geConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 12

Pursuant to § 1581(c), this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action 7 commence d under se ction 516A of the Ta riff A ct of 1930, c odified as amended at § 1516a, which provide s for judicial re view of, a mong othe r proc eeding s, a Section 129 dete rmination. § 1516a(a )(2) (B )(vii). conce rns a c laim that the application of a law to a pa

rticular pr ocee ding, a

nd the fa ctual de te rm inatio ns and

le g a l c on c lus ion s r e a c he d a s a re su lt o f t

he us e of su c h r ule or pr a c tic e , is unlawful. Se e id ., 31 CI T at ___, 508 F . Supp. 2d at 1347. 1. Availabil ity of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and Adequ ate R elief Th ere und er Under the fa cts of this case , the true nature of Plaintiffs’ c halleng e to the application of the Section 123 De termination in a par ticular proc eedingis nothing more tha n a mislabelingof the cha rg e that the f

inal results of the Section 129 De termination are c on tr ary to l aw, a c la im pr op e rl y br ou g ht o nly

un de r § 15 81 (c ). Th e purp os e of a Se c tio n 1 23 de te rm inatio n is to 7 amend, r escind, or modify an ag ency

regulation or prac tice found to be inconsistent with any of the Uruguay

Round Ag ree ments, where as a Sec tion 129 determination aff ects the a pplication of that r e g ulatio n o r p ra c tic e in a sp e c if ic pr oc e e din g . § § 3 53 3( g )( 1) , 3 53 8( a )( 1) , 3 53 8( b) (1 ). I t is clea r that these pr ocee dings a re inde ed diffe rent in kind, and the D efe ndant admits as much. De f. Br . 8. Howeve r, it cannot be said in this case that the a pplication of the Section 123 Determ ination i s an y

d i ff er en ti ns u

b s t an ce fr o mth e e x i s t i n g Section 129 De termination . Her e Commerce’ s decision to use off setting in c erta in proce eding s was applied to r eca lculate the weig hted-avera g e dumping marg in for the subjec t mercha ndise. Additionally , the re lief soug ht by the Plaintiffs in this claim is identical to that soug ht in the challeng e to the fina l results of a Section 129 proce eding– that Commerce’ s decision to use off setting in its calc ulation of the weig hted-avera g e dumping marg in for the subjec t mercha ndise is contrar

y to law. U.S. SteelConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 13

Compl. ¶¶ 20-21 in Consol. C ourt No. 07-170; Ar celorMittal Com pl. ¶¶ 29-31 in Consol. Court No. 07-170. Thus, the c ourt must dism iss Pl aintiffs’ c halleng e to the application of the Section 123 Determ ination beca

use ade quate r elief f

or the c laim is available unde r § 1581(c ) and that subsection has not bee n shown to provide a ma nifestly inadequate re medy

under the
c ir c ums tanc e s. Moreove r, ade quate r elief e x ists under § 1581(c) for Plaintiffs’ f acia l challeng e to the Section 123 De termination . I t is true that a Section 123 dete rmination is not one of the listed administrative proc eeding s that are subject to judicial revie w under § 1516a. Indeed, no othe r pr ov isi on of the Un ite d St a te s Co de e xpre ssl y state s w he the r a

Se c tio n 1 23 de te rm inatio n is subject to judicial revie w and, if so, whic h fede ral c ourt has jurisdiction over suc h an ac tion. Howeve r, a c are ful rea ding of the complaints and brie fing s in Consol . Court Nos. 07-170 and 07- 475 forc es the c ourt to dismis s Plainti ffs’ f acia l challeng e to the Section 123 De termination here be c a us e the re me dy

so ug ht i n th is c a se may

be a de qu a te ly

pr ov ide d und e r § 15 81 (c ). In Co ns ol. Court No. 07-170, Plaintiffs challeng e both the Section 123 De termination as such, a s well as the final re sults of the Section 129 De termination un de r § 15 81 (c ). U. S. St e e l Co mpl . ¶ ¶ 1 6- 21 in Consol. C ourt No. 07-170; Ar celorMittal Com pl. ¶¶ 25-31 in Consol. Court No. 07-170. The Court, as it has done in other c ases unde r § 1581(c ), may addre ss a fa cial cha lleng e to a g ener al ag ency prac tice employ ed by

Commerce, a s well as to the fina l results of an a g ency proce eding that is subject to judicial reviewunder § 1516a

. See , e.g. , Parkdale I nt’l v. United States , 3 0 C IT 551, 429 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (2006). E qually important is the fac t that Plainti ffs ra ised a fa cial challeng e to the Section 123 De termination duringthe Section 129 proc eeding , a cla im that Def endant disre g arde d as beingoutside the scope of the proc eeding

. Section 129 De terminationConsol. Court No. 07-00475 P age 14

The c ourt’s dec ision here should not be re ad to sug g est that an a g ency action under 8 Se c tio n 1 23 of

the UR AAis f re e fr om j ud ic ia l r e vie w. I t ma y be the c a se that, u

nd e r c e rt a in f

a c ts wh e re no ne of

the oth e r s ub se c tio ns of

§ 1 58 1 p ro vid e s a

pla int if f w itha de qu a te re lie f, § 1 58 1( i) wi ll b e the mos t a

pp ro pr iate ave nu e to c ha lle ng e a g e ne ra l c ha

ng e in a g e nc y

pr a c tic e a s it

is adopted by

the United States in a Sec tion 123 determination. Howe ver, be cause the re medy provided by

§ 1581(c) will address the r elief sought by Plaintiffs, the fac ts of this case do not permit the cour

t to assume jurisdiction under § 1581(i). Issues and De cision Memorandum at 5-7, 9-11. Plaintiffs may contest De fenda

nt’s deter mination on this issue when it asks the c ourt to review the final re sults of the Section 129 Determ ination , a

nd in f a c t ha s d on e so in C on so l. C ourt No . 0 7- 17 0 und e r § 15 81 (c ). Thus , be c a us e a de qu a te re lie f l ie s und e r a no the r s ub se c tio n o f § 15 81 , th e c ourt may no t e xer c ise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ cla ims here unde r § 1581(i). See NEC Cor p. , 151 F.3d a

t 1368. 8 F ina lly , b e c a

us e the c ourt

fi nd s th a t it

do e s n ot h ave jur isd ic tio n o ve r P la int if fs ’ c la ims
un de r t he fa c ts o f t

his c a se a s th e y

have an a de qu a te a lte rn a tiv e re me dy , th e re is n oth ingle ft fo r i t to decide a

nd there fore it must dismiss this action filed pursuant to § 1581(i). Se e Ex pa rte Mc Car dle , 74 U.S. at 514. Acc ording ly , the cour t need not addr ess Def

endant’ s arguments of wh e the r ( 1) the Un ite d St ate s w a ive d it s so ve re ig n immun ity , ( 2) a Se c tio n 1 23 de te rm inatio n is ag ency action under

the APA, (3) Plaintiffs have Ar ticle I I Iconstitutional and prudential standing , or (4) Plaintiffs stated a cla im upon which relief may be g rante d. IV. Conclusion F or the re a so ns dis c us se d h e re in, De fe nd ant a nd De fe nd ant- Inte rv e no r’ s Mo tio ns to Dismiss are g rante d as ade quate r elief lies f or Plaintiffs’ fa cial and a s applied cha lleng es to the Section 123 De termination under § 1581( c).

D a t e : M ay 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 / s /J u d i thM
. B ar z i l ay Ne w Y o rk , Ne w Y o rk J u d i thM
. Barz i l ay , J u d ge