Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v. United States

745 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 2024 CIT 130

Opinion

Slip Op. 24-130

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BIOPARQUES DE OCCIDENTE, S.A. DE C.V., AGRICOLA LA PRIMAVERA, S.A. DE C.V., AND KALIROY FRESH LLC,

Plaintiffs,

CONFEDERACION DE ASOCIACIONES AGRICOLAS DEL ESTADO DE SINALOA, A.C., CONSEJO AGRICOLA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA, A.C., ASOCIACION MEXICANA DE HORTICULTURA PROTEGIDA, A.C., ASOCIACION DE PRODUCTORES DE Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge HORTALIZAS DEL YAQUI Y MAYO, AND SISTEMA Consol. Court No. 19-00204 PRODUCTO TOMATE,

Consolidated Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

THE FLORIDA TOMATO EXCHANGE,

Defendant-Intervenor. Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 2

OPINION AND ORDER

[Granting the Partial Consent Motion to Intervene Out of Time filed by NS Brands, Ltd. and Naturesweet Invernaderos S. de R.L. de C.V./NatureSweet Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V.]

Dated: November 25, 2024

Jeffrey M. Winton, Michael Chapman, Amrietha Nellan, Ruby Rodriguez, and Vi N. Mai, Winton & Chapman PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., Agricola La Primavera, S.A. de C.V., and Kaliroy Fresh LLC.

Yujin K. McNamara, Bernd G. Janzen, Devin S. Sikes, and Paul S. Bettencourt, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, A.C., Consejo Agricola de Baja California, A.C., Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Asociacion de Productores de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistema Producto Tomate.

Douglas G. Edelschick, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. Of counsel are Ayat Mujais and Emma T. Hunter, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Charles S. Levy, Chase J. Dunn, James R. Cannon, Jr., Jonathan M. Zielinski, Mary Jane Alves, and Nicole Brunda, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for The Florida Tomato Exchange.

Jessica R. DiPietro, ArentFox Schiff, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors NS Brands, Ltd. and Naturesweet Invernaderos S. de R.L. de C.V./NatureSweet Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V. Also on the brief were Matthew M. Nolan and Leah N. Scarpelli.

Choe-Groves, Judge: Before the Court is the Partial Consent Motion to

Intervene Out of Time filed by NS Brands, Ltd. and Naturesweet Invernaderos S.

de R.L. de C.V./NatureSweet Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 3

“NatureSweet”). NatureSweet’s Part. Consent Mot. Interv. Out of Time

(“NatureSweet’s Motion” or “NatureSweet’s Mot.”), ECF No. 122. Plaintiffs

Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., Agricola La Primavera, S.A. de C.V., and

Kaliroy Fresh LLC and Consolidated Plaintiffs Confederacion de Asociaciones

Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa, A.C., Consejo Agricola de Baja California, A.C.,

Asociacion Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Asociacion de Productores

de Hortalizas del Yaqui y Mayo, and Sistema Producto Tomate consent to

NatureSweet’s Motion. Id. at 9. Defendant United States and Defendant-

Intervenor The Florida Tomato Exchange oppose NatureSweet’s Motion. Id. at 8–

9; Def.’s Resp. Opp’n NatureSweet’s Out-of-Time Mot. Interv. (“Def.’s Resp.”)

ECF No. 128; Def.-Interv.’s Cmts. Opp’n NatureSweet’s Mot. Interv. Out of Time

(“Def.-Interv.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 127.

NatureSweet moves to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to USCIT Rule

24. NatureSweet’s Mot. at 3. In actions filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, a

party may intervene as a matter of right if that party is an “interested party,” 19

U.S.C. § 1516a(f)(3), “would be adversely affected or aggrieved by a decision in a

civil action pending in the Court of International Trade,” 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1),

and “was a party to the proceeding in connection with which the matter arose,” id.

§ 2631(j)(1)(B). Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(f)(3), “interested party” includes

“a foreign manufacturer, producer, or exporter, or the United States importer, of Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 4

subject merchandise or a trade or business association a majority of the members

of which are producers, exporters, or importers of such merchandise.” 19 U.S.C.

§§ 1516a(f)(3), 1677(9)(A). “Interested party” also includes “a manufacturer,

producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product.” Id.

§ 1677(9)(C). To be timely, the motion to intervene as a matter of right must be

made no later than 30 days after the date of service of the complaint. USCIT R.

24(a)(3). A motion to intervene will only be considered after the 30-day period

upon a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” or that,

despite the proposed intervenor having exercised due diligence, the motion could

not have been timely filed. Id.

NatureSweet is an interested party to this proceeding because Naturesweet

Invernaderos S. de R.L. de C.V. and NatureSweet Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de

C.V. are foreign producers of tomatoes and NS Brands, Ltd. is a domestic importer

and producer of tomatoes. NatureSweet’s Mot. at 4; see 28 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(A),

(C). NatureSweet participated in the underlying administrative proceedings during

the remand by requesting an examination, submitting comments, and meeting with

the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). NatureSweet’s Mot. at 4, Exs.

4, 5. NatureSweet’s Motion was untimely filed on October 25, 2024, more than 30

days after Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint on December 20, 2019.

NatureSweet’s Mot.; Compl., ECF No. 9. Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 5

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor oppose NatureSweet’s untimely

motion on three grounds. First, they contend that the motion is procedurally

defective because it does not identify the issues sought to be raised through

intervention, as required by USCIT Rule 24(c)(2). Def.’s Resp. at 5; Def.-Interv.’s

Resp. at 3–4. Second, Defendant argues that NatureSweet’s arguments have been

waived because NatureSweet did not file an administrative brief during the remand

proceedings. Def.’s Resp. at 5–7. Third, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor

assert that NatureSweet has not demonstrated good cause for the nearly five-year

delay in filing its intervention motion. Def.’s Resp. at 7–8; Def.-Interv.’s Resp. at

1–3.

Beginning with the first argument, USCIT Rule 24(c)(2) requires that

“[w]hen the movant for intervention seeks to intervene on the side of the plaintiff,

the motion must state the movant’s standing, and must state the administrative

determination to be reviewed and the issues that the intervenor desires to litigate.”

USCIT R. 24(c)(2). Defendant contends that “[i]t is unclear whether NatureSweet

desires to litigate issues that it raised in comments during the remand or the

underlying investigation, because NatureSweet’s motion fails to identify the issues

that it actually intends to litigate.” Def.’s Resp. at 5. In its motion, NatureSweet

explains that during the 2019 investigation, it “repeatedly requested an

investigation of its operations in order to obtain an individually calculated rate, Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 6

which was denied by Commerce.” NatureSweet’s Mot. at 7. On remand,

NatureSweet submitted comments in response to Commerce’s Draft Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, arguing that Commerce should

conduct a changed circumstances review or a new shipper review to determine if

NatureSweet is entitled to an individually calculated dumping margin.

NatureSweet’s Mot. at 6, Ex. 5; see Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Court Remand (“Remand Redetermination”) at 31–32, ECF Nos. 120-1, 121-1. In

the Remand Redetermination, Commerce expressly addressed NatureSweet’s

comments and determined that neither a changed circumstances review nor a new

shipper review is possible under the applicable statutes because an antidumping

duty order has not been issued. Remand Redetermination at 32–33. In its motion

for intervention, NatureSweet states that “the circumstances that now exist

regarding NatureSweet providing information on the record of the remand

proceeding and its information being used in Commerce’s remand redetermination

did not exist during the initial thirty-day period for intervention from when the

Complaint was filed.” NatureSweet’s Mot. at 8. Read in its totality, the Court

concludes that NatureSweet’s Motion sufficiently articulates its reasons for seeking

intervention.

Defendant next argues that NatureSweet’s arguments have been waived

because NatureSweet did not file an administrative brief during the remand Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 7

proceedings. Def.’s Resp. at 5–7. Before a claim may be brought to the Court, an

aggrieved party must exhaust available administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2637(d). The Court “generally takes a ‘strict view’ of the requirement that

parties exhaust their administrative remedies.” Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts

Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 19

C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) requires that, “[t]he case brief must present all arguments

that continue in the submitter’s view to be relevant to the . . . final determination or

final results.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2). Among the limited exceptions to the

exhaustion requirement is that “exhaustion may be excused if the issue was raised

by another party, or if it is clear that the agency had an opportunity to consider it.”

Holmes Prod. Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 1101, 1104 (1992) (“[E]xhaustion

may be excused if the issue was raised by another party, or if it is clear that the

agency had an opportunity to consider it.”). NatureSweet did not file an

administrative case brief during the remand, but submitted comments to

Commerce. See Remand Redetermination at 9. Commerce expressly responded to

arguments raised by NatureSweet in the Remand Redetermination, demonstrating

that Commerce had an opportunity to consider the arguments raised by

NatureSweet during the administrative process. Therefore, the exception to

administrative exhaustion applies and the Court concludes that NatureSweet’s

arguments were not waived. Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 8

Defendant’s and Defendant-Intervenor’s final objection asserts that

NatureSweet has not demonstrated good cause for the nearly five-year delay in

filing its intervention motion. Def.’s Resp. at 7–8; Def.-Interv.’s Resp. at 1–3. In

Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. v. United States, 48 CIT __, 698 F. Supp. 3d 1265

(2024), the Court remanded this case to Commerce in 2024 to “resume its

investigation flowing from the affirmative preliminary determination issued on

November 1, 1996, including focusing its analysis on the evidence submitted

regarding the original period of investigation of March 1, 1995 through February

29, 1996, and reviewing the original six mandatory respondents.” Id. at __, 698 F.

Supp. at 1276–77. In doing so, the Court drastically changed the landscape of this

litigation by ordering Commerce to investigate the tomato market in 1995–1996,

approximately 29 years earlier. Despite all appropriate due diligence, it would

have been nearly impossible in 2019 for NatureSweet to anticipate the results of

the Court’s 2024 remand in this unique case, and NatureSweet should not be

penalized now for failing to anticipate in 2019 that it needed to intervene to

participate in the 2024 court proceeding. See USCIT R. 24(a)(3). The Court finds

that good cause exists to excuse NatureSweet’s delay in seeking to intervene.

Upon consideration of NatureSweet’s Partial Consent Motion to Intervene

Out of Time, ECF No. 122, Defendant-Intervenor’s Comments Opposing

NatureSweet’s Motion to Intervene Out of Time, ECF No. 127, Defendant’s Consol. Court No. 19-00204 Page 9

Response in Opposition to NatureSweet’s Out-of-Time Motion to Intervene, ECF

No. 128, and all other papers and proceedings in this action, it is hereby

ORDERED that NatureSweet’s Partial Consent Motion to Intervene Out of

Time, ECF No. 122, is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that NS Brands, Ltd. and Naturesweet Invernaderos S. de R.L.

de C.V./NatureSweet Comercializadora, S. de R.L. de C.V. are added as Plaintiff-

Intervenors in Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, Consol.

Court No. 19-00204.

/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Dated: November 25, 2024 New York, New York