Opinion ID: 657272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Advanced Display's Appeal

Text: 24 Travelstead and Finkelstein were cases involving two parties, the government and a private petitioner. Their teachings touched on whether the government could return to the remanding court after a remand order that has instructed the government to reverse its initial decision or approach. Their teachings do not support the proposition that a private party may appeal an interlocutory remand order. Any private party can argue that an adverse Commission determination on remand is in error before the Court of International Trade and can appeal any adverse determination by the Court of International Trade after the proceedings contemplated by the remand order have been finally completed. 25 Travelstead and Finkelstein together stand for the proposition that under certain circumstances a governmental entity, to which the case has been remanded for a new determination, may appeal from certain remand orders. The government may appeal, inter alia, if the remand order unquestionably terminates the action before the remanding court and extinguishes the government's ability to have an important regulatory or statutory issue reviewed because the government could not thereafter appeal from its own decision. However, Advanced Display cannot assert that it would be unable to appeal an adverse determination or that it would be unable to make certain arguments as an appellee at a later date. Advanced Display's involvement in any future appeal from a final judgment is limited only by its own actions. 2 See Badger-Powhatan, 808 F.2d at 825. 26 As a final matter, we recognize the unsettling effect that appeals from Court of International Trade remand orders could have on some cases. We disfavor a piecemeal approach to review and the possibility that such review could delay further a final adjudication concerning all issues in a case, especially when as here related issues are before this court and the Court of International Trade. Meanwhile, in the motion to dismiss no. 93-1224, Hosiden states that they continue to post cash deposits for possible antidumping duties. Review of the issues in the remand order is not simply appropriate at this time.