Case Name: Wire Rope Importers' Association, plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-09-27
Citations: 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1092
Docket Number: Court No. 93-04-00221
Parties: Wire Rope Importers’ Association, plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of International Trade Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 1092–1092

Head Matter:
Wire Rope Importers’ Association, plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Court No. 93-04-00221
(Decided September 27, 1993)
Klayman & Associates, PC. (Larry Klayman) for plaintiff.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Cynthia B. Schultz), Lyn M. Schlitt, General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, James A. Toupin, Assistant General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission (Lyle B. Vander Schaaf), for defendant.

Opinion:
Opinion and Order
DiCarlo, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff brought this action under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(1988) by filing a summons on April 22, 1993, within 30 days after the publication of a final affirmative determination by the International Trade Commission in the investigation of Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea and Mexico, 58 Fed. Reg. 16,206 (March 25, 1993). Plaintiff filed its complaint on May 26, 1993, 34 days after the filing of the summons. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint was not filed within 30 days of the filing of the summons as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2).
It is well settled under the court decisions in Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 143, 801 F.2d 1308 (1986), and Pistachio Group of Ass'n of Food Indus., Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 537, 667 F. Supp. 886 (1987), that this court lacks jurisdiction where the complaint in an action brought under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) is filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons. Plaintiff has presented no valid argument distinguishing this case from the above-cited cases.
Accordingly, it is hereby
Ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and it is further
Ordered that the action is dismissed.