CIT Denies Motion to Stay Case Involving 'First Sale' Treatment Pending CAFC Meyer Decision
Proceedings in a Court of International Trade case involving a first sale valuation for imports from a non-market economy will continue as planned and won't await a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a related case, Judge Mark Barnett said in a June 3 order denying a stay sought by apparel importer Imperia Trading. It argued that proceedings should be halted since the Department of Justice “relies heavily” on a March 1 CIT decision involving the first sale treatment of cookware imported by Meyer (see 2103020040). Barnett sided with DOJ, saying that "the court is not persuaded that the outcome of the appeal in Meyer Corp. ... will necessarily be determinative in this case." Imperia now faces a June 4 deadline to submit a motion for summary judgment barring an extension (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00142).
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.
The denial of the stay comes amid questions raised by CIT's decision in the Meyer case on whether first sale can be applied to goods from NMEs. DOJ since relied on that decision to argue an importer must be able to prove that prices were not distorted to use first sale for transactions involving NMEs (see 2104300049). “Obviously, should the Court of Appeals give concrete form to Judge Aquilino’s doubts, plaintiff would be unsuited, because the merchandise at bar in this case is from China, recognized (for purposes of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, at least) as a ‘nonmarket economy country,’” Imperia's motion for the stay had said. “A stay of briefing on the present motion is justified while the Federal Circuit considers this seminal, and potentially dispositive, issue.”