Parties Litigate Alleged Transshipper's Right to Intervene in EAPA Case
Global Aluminum Distributor backed Kingtom Aluminio's renewed bid to join a lawsuit over an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found it helped importers evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, while the original EAPA alleger, Ta Chen International, disputed Kingtom's motion for reconsideration in the case, in briefs filed July 7 (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198). Kingtom asks the Court of International Trade to reverse its own June 21 decision that Kingtom can't intervene in the case, brought by the importers found to have evaded AD/CV duties.
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.
Judge Richard Eaton initially rejected Kingtom's bid to intervene since “Kingtom has failed to establish that its business interest in continuing to sell its aluminum extrusions to the plaintiff importers in this case without duties is an 'interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,' as required for intervention as a matter of right under [CIT's rules]." Kingtom also didn't share a claim with the main action, the judge said. In its motion to reconsider, Kingtom contested both of these points, arguing that it shares a due process challenge with Global Aluminum and that it has a business interest in proving its goods are not co-mingled with Chinese aluminum extrusions.
Ta Chen, in its response, called out Kingtom's motion to reconsider as simply rearguing the positions in its original intervention motion, which the court already rejected. "Amplification of already presented arguments is an insufficient basis for seeking reconsideration because a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the losing party 'to re-litigate the case or present arguments it previously raised,'" the brief said.
Global Aluminum, on the other hand, supported Kingtom's bid, declaring that the rejection of Kingtom's opportunity to intervene "will work a manifest injustice" on Global Aluminum itself. "Specifically, while it is true that the review in this case is on the record, many of the facts with respect to the production of aluminum extrusions -- the very essence of this case -- are best known by the manufacturer of the goods, not by an importer who is not directly involved with the production of the goods at issue," the brief said. "As such, much of the public record includes information best reviewed in conjunction with Kingtom. Further, while confidential information cannot be disclosed by counsel to Kingtom, Kingtom’s own counsel, upon obtaining access to the confidential record, will best be able to elucidate the critical facts of record necessary for a proper defense of this matter."