UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 22-133

Before the Court in Goodluck India Limited v. United States, et. al., Court No. 22-24, Slip Op. 22-133 (December 1, 2022) was the Government’s partial motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and alternatively 1581(i). Plaintiff filed the case to challenge the final agency action by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) concerning the assessment of antidumping duties (“ADD”) on plaintiff’s entries subject to the third administrative review (“AR3”) of the ADD Order on certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India, with a period of review spanning June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2021. Id. at 2. In doing so, plaintiff plead jurisdiction under two different provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1581. The Government filed a motion to dismiss “the complaint to the extent that [it] avers jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), and argues that the proper jurisdictional basis is 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).” Id. at 3. For the following reasons the Court denied the Government’s motion.

“The currently accepted definition of federal subject-matter jurisdiction is ‘the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Id. at 3. U.S. Court of International Trade Rule (“U.S.C.I.T. R.”) 8(e) states “that if a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient. Id. at 4. U.S.C.I.T. R. 8 also “requires pleadings to be construed so as to do justice.” Id. at 5. The Court said that “the Government concedes that the court has the power to hear both counts brought forth by Goodluck” and that “the court thus questions whether such a motion can be properly construed as a partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 4. The Court did however note that “despite Goodluck’s arguments otherwise, Goodluck here does not challenge a section 1516a determination” which would result in 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) jurisdiction. Id. at 5-6. The Court continued to note that “nevertheless, because the agency decision involves administration and enforcement of the antidumping laws, and because no other subsection of section 1581 is or could have been available, subsection (i) jurisdiction may attach in this case” Id. at 6-7. Ultimately, the Court concluded that because “Goodluck alternatively pleaded grounds of jurisdiction as permitted under Rule 8(e) of this court, the Complaint has met the court’s liberal pleading requirements and the mere use of alternative pleading does not render the Complaint insufficient.” Id. at 4. As such, the government’s motion to dismiss was denied.