NZ Gov't Opposes Request for CIT to Reconsider Decision Not to Ban Seafood From NZ Fisheries
The New Zealand government on Oct. 16 opposed conservation group Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's motion for the Court of International Trade to reconsider its decision not to immediately impose an import ban on seafood and seafood products from set net and trawl fisheries off New Zealand's North Island. Reconsideration motions under CIT Rule 59(e), like the conservation group's, can only be applied to judgments, and the trade court hasn't issued a judgment here, merely a remand, the New Zealand government argued (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
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.
In addition, while CIT can reconsider a previous decision under Rule 54(b), the Dolphin Defenders failed to satisfy the criteria courts have applied when reconsidering previous decisions, the New Zealand government argued.
In August, the trade court vacated the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision memorandum underlying its comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries (see 2508260047). CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the memo was "arbitrary and capricious" and backed by minimal evidence. However, the judge declined to compel the agency to ban seafood from these fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, though the judge said the court's findings could lead to an import ban going forward.
The conservation group asked the court to reconsider its decision to compel NMFS to impose an import ban, to which the New Zealand government said any such reconsideration is improper. The New Zealand government argued that grounds for reconsideration include "an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, the need to correct a clear factual or legal error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.” None of these factors are at play here, the brief said.
The Dolphin Defenders group merely repeats the "remedy-related contentions that it first raised in its Motion for Summary Judgment" that the court rejected. The arguments the group has raised in its reconsideration motion "are no different from the arguments that this Court has previously considered," the brief said. "This is mere re-litigation of the claim that the Court rejected."
The New Zealand government also said the Dolphin Defenders' motion rests on an incorrect premise. While the group says the trade court vacated the comparability finding itself, Choe-Groves actually only vacated the decision memorandum, the brief said. Thus, the court required NMFS to file both its remand comparability findings and its remand decision memorandum, though "nothing in its Opinion indicates that the current Comparability Finding is not still effective."
The New Zealand government added that there's no current basis for the trade court to consider alleged defects in NMFS' comparability findings made two days after the trade court's decision. Nevertheless, the conservation group claimed that Choe-Groves should review the new comparability findings, since they are "fundamentally identical" to the vacated decision memo. The New Zealand government said consideration of the new comparability findings is "premature," since they don't take effect until Jan. 1, 2026.