CIT Dismisses Another Domestic Producer's Constitutional Challenges of CDSOA
The Court of International Trade dismissed Nan Ya Plastics Corporation’s bid for monetary benefits under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA, aka the Byrd Amendment). Nan Ya had originally been a petitioner in the 1999 antidumping investigations of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
polyester staple fiber from Korea and Taiwan, but withdrew its support mid-investigation. CIT ruled that the International Trade Commission’s exclusion of Nan Ya from the affected domestic producer (ADP) list of firms eligible for CDSOA benefits was in accordance with the law and, as has been the case in past CIT decisions, dismissed Nan Ya’s First Amendment free speech claims and Fifth Amendment equal protection claims as foreclosed by the precedent of the court of appeals’ ruling in SKF v. U.S. CIT also said the retroactivity of CDSOA (domestic companies did not know that non-support of the petition would prevent CDSOA funds distribution at the time of the investigation) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because Congress had a rational legislative purpose. (CIT Slip Op. 12-92, dated 07/12/12, Judges Carman, Stanceu, and Gordon)