Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States

33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1296, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 2009 CIT 99, 33 C.I.T. 1296, 31 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2149, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 106

Opinion

Memorandum, and Order

POGUE, Judge.

Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilities Group (“AHUG”), a group of American utility companies that purchases and uses uranium, has sought review of the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) decision in Uranium, From Russia, 71 Fed.Reg. 44,-707 (ITC Aug. 6, 2006) (concluding that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States) and accompanying Uranium from Russia, USITC Pub. 3872, Inv. No. 731-TA-539-C (Second Review) (Aug.2006), available at 2006 ITC LEXIS 537.

The Court, on June 16, 2009, in accordance with Ad Hoc Utils. Group v. United States, Slip Op. 09-56, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 1654498 (CIT June 15, 2009), dismissed this action, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(c). See Ad Hoc Utils. Group v. United States, 634 F.Supp.2d 1359 (CIT 2009). In its decision ordering dismissal, the Court noted that the issues of law and fact before the court are no different than those presented in Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States, Cause No. 06-229 (“AHUG”) (AHUG’s challenge to Commerce’s final determination that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would likely result in continued dumping of enriched uranium), where the court also dismissed AHUG’s action for lack of statutory standing and has further denied AHUG’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The parties in AHUG and the case at bar are identical, and there is no significant argument raised by Plaintiff here that was not considered by the court in AHUG.

AHUG has now moved, pursuant to US-CIT R. 59, for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal. This motion followed a similar motion in Cause No. 06-229, which motion was denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in AHUG, the court DENIES AHUG’s motion for reconsideration.

It is SO ORDERED.