Feb 8th, 2023
Trade Updates for Week of February 8, 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Slip Op. 23-12
Before the Court in Columbia Aluminum Prods., LLC v. United States, Court No.19-185, Slip Op. 23-12 (February 6, 2022) was the motion of defendant-intervenor, Endura Products, Inc. (“Endura”), to stay litigation before the Court pending a conclusive decision in an appeal of this Court’s judgment in another proceeding. This litigation arose from determinations by Customs that certain assembled door thresholds imported from Vietnam by Columbia were evading antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China. Endura bases its stay motion on its intention to appeal the judgment of this Court in Columbia Alum. Prods., LLC v. United States, 46 CIT __, Slip Op. No. 22-144 (Dec. 16, 2022). The judgment sustained a decision Commerce reached, upon remand and under protest, that certain door thresholds Columbia imported from China were not within the scope of the Orders. The Government consented to the motion, while plaintiffs opposed the stay, For the following reasons the Court denied Endura’s motion to stay.
The decision to stay proceedings is a matter for the court’s broad discretion and involves considerations of fairness to the litigants and judicial economy. Id. at 3. The Court said that a stay would not preserve resources because it “would allow the evasion determination against Columbia Aluminum to remain in place notwithstanding Commerce’[s] determining that Columbia Aluminum’s assembled thresholds are outside the scope of the Orders.” Id. at 4. This could result in “reputational harm on Columbia Aluminum and a financial harm given CBP’s suspension of liquidation preventing the release of customs bonds.” Id. The Court ultimately held that “Endura has not convinced the court that continuing to participate in this litigation … will cause it harm in any appreciable way that could justify interrupting these proceedings pending its pursuit of an appeal in related litigation.” Id. at 4-5. As such, the motion to stay was denied.