Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) INC. USA, JEM D MARKETING (VIRGINIA) INC., RED SUN FARMS HOLDINGS USA LLC, RED SUN FARMS VIRGINIA LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, FLORIDA TOMATO EXCHANGE, Defendants-Appellees ______________________
2021-1292 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:19-cv-00127-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe- Groves. ______________________
Decided: April 14, 2022 ______________________
JAMES P. DURLING, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appel- lants. Also represented JAMES BEATY, DANIEL L. PORTER. Also argued by DEVIN S. SIKES, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC; JEFFREY WINTON, Winton & Chapman PLLC, Washington, DC. Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 2 Filed: 04/14/2022
DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also argued by ROBERT R. KIEPURA. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, JEANNE DAVIDSON,FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; EMMA T. HUNTER, Of- fice of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compli- ance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
MARY JANE ALVES, Cassidy Levy Kent USA LLP, Wash- ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Florida Tomato Exchange. Also represented by JAMES R. CANNON, JR., ULRIKA K. SWANSON, JONATHAN M. ZIELINSKI. ______________________
Before DYK, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. This appeal is one of four consolidated cases arising out of an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether fresh Mexican tomatoes were being imported into the United States and sold at less than fair value. The his- tory of the proceedings is described in our two accompany- ing precedential opinions in Confederacion de Asociaciónes v. United States, No. 2020-2232, and Bioparques de Occi- dente v. United States, No. 2020-2265. Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA, Jem D Mar- keting (Virginia) Inc., Red Sun Farms Holdings USA LLC, and Red Sun Farms Virginia LLC (collectively, “Jem D”) appeal a final decision of the Court of International Trade (the “Trade Court”). Jem D is the exclusive domestic dealer and marketer for three privately-held Mexican fresh to- mato producer-exporters. These producer-exporters— Naturbell SPR DE RL, San Miguel Red Sun Farms SPR DE RL DE CV, and Agricola El Rosal DE—are members of the Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 3 Filed: 04/14/2022
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) v. US 3
(“AMHPAC”), a named plaintiff in Confederacion. Jem D resells all three producer-exporters’ tomatoes in the United States under the name “Red Sun Farms.” On May 7, 2019, Commerce published notice in the Federal Register that it was withdrawing from the 2013 suspension agreement (“the 2013 agreement”). Fresh To- matoes From Mexico, 84 Fed. Reg. at 20,858 (May 13, 2019). Jem D filed its initial complaint in the Trade Court on July 18, 2019. On September 24, 2019, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published notice that it had en- tered into a new suspension agreement with the parties on September 24, 2019 (“the 2019 agreement”). Fresh Toma- toes From Mexico, 84 Fed. Reg. at 49,989 (Sept. 24, 2019). On December 23, 2019, Jem D filed an amended complaint in the Trade Court that raised three claims: (1) a challenge to Commerce’s decision to terminate the 2013 agreement for allegedly violating 19 U.S.C. § 1673c(i)’s statutory re- quirements; 1 (2) a challenge to Commerce’s continued in- vestigation for using an improper preliminary determination date; and (3) a challenge to the 2019 agree- ment for allegedly violating § 1673c(e)’s notice and com- ment requirements and for incorporating terms beyond those permitted by § 1673c. 2 The government moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness, lack of subject matter ju- risdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Trade Court granted the govern- ment’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice on
1 This count also relied on Commerce’s regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.209(a), which are equivalent to the statute itself for purposes of this claim. 2 This count also relied on Commerce’s regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.208, which are equivalent to the statute it- self for purposes of this claim. Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 4 Filed: 04/14/2022
the ground that the case was moot. Jem D appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). DISCUSSION The appellants here, as in Confederacion, challenge the termination of the 2013 agreement. The Trade Court held that this claim was moot. Our decision in Confederacion resolves this claim. There, we conclude that, while we have jurisdiction over the claim and the claim is not moot, it was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm the Trade Court’s decision with respect to this claim. Jem D also challenges the continuation of the anti- dumping proceeding by Commerce. As we hold in Confed- eracion, the Trade Court has no jurisdiction over such an interim challenge except as part of a challenge to a final determination. 3 See 33 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 8361 (2d ed. 2021) (“[J]udicial review is available only for ‘final’ agency ac- tions.”); see also Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 782 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding agency deci- sion to initiate or continue proceedings cannot be reviewed until there is a final agency determination); Gov’t of Peo- ple’s Republic of China v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (holding appellants could challenge Commerce’s decision to initiate an investigation after publication of the final determination). Here, Jem D’s amended complaint raised no challenge to the final anti- dumping determination. Accordingly, the Trade Court
3 Congress contemplated that decisions such as “a preliminary affirmative antidumping . . . determination or a decision to exclude a particular exporter from an anti- dumping investigation,” would be reviewable “only in con- nection with the review of the final determination.” H.R. Rep. No. 96-1235, at 48 (1980). Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 5 Filed: 04/14/2022
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) v. US 5
lacked jurisdiction over this claim, and we affirm the Trade Court’s dismissal. Finally, Jem D challenges the 2019 agreement. Unlike the appellants in Confederacion, appellants here do not raise a duress claim, but instead contend that the 2019 agreement is invalid because it violates statutory require- ments. Jem D argues that in negotiating the 2019 agree- ment, Commerce failed to comply with § 1673c(e)’s notice and comment requirements. It also claims that the agree- ment impermissibly incorporated terms “unrelated to price,” which according to Jem D, are not permitted by § 1673c. 4 J.A. 70.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 04/14/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) INC. USA, JEM D MARKETING (VIRGINIA) INC., RED SUN FARMS HOLDINGS USA LLC, RED SUN FARMS VIRGINIA LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, FLORIDA TOMATO EXCHANGE, Defendants-Appellees ______________________
2021-1292 ______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:19-cv-00127-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe- Groves. ______________________
Decided: April 14, 2022 ______________________
JAMES P. DURLING, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appel- lants. Also represented JAMES BEATY, DANIEL L. PORTER. Also argued by DEVIN S. SIKES, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC; JEFFREY WINTON, Winton & Chapman PLLC, Washington, DC. Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 2 Filed: 04/14/2022
DOUGLAS GLENN EDELSCHICK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also argued by ROBERT R. KIEPURA. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, JEANNE DAVIDSON,FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR.; EMMA T. HUNTER, Of- fice of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compli- ance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
MARY JANE ALVES, Cassidy Levy Kent USA LLP, Wash- ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Florida Tomato Exchange. Also represented by JAMES R. CANNON, JR., ULRIKA K. SWANSON, JONATHAN M. ZIELINSKI. ______________________
Before DYK, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. This appeal is one of four consolidated cases arising out of an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether fresh Mexican tomatoes were being imported into the United States and sold at less than fair value. The his- tory of the proceedings is described in our two accompany- ing precedential opinions in Confederacion de Asociaciónes v. United States, No. 2020-2232, and Bioparques de Occi- dente v. United States, No. 2020-2265. Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA, Jem D Mar- keting (Virginia) Inc., Red Sun Farms Holdings USA LLC, and Red Sun Farms Virginia LLC (collectively, “Jem D”) appeal a final decision of the Court of International Trade (the “Trade Court”). Jem D is the exclusive domestic dealer and marketer for three privately-held Mexican fresh to- mato producer-exporters. These producer-exporters— Naturbell SPR DE RL, San Miguel Red Sun Farms SPR DE RL DE CV, and Agricola El Rosal DE—are members of the Asociación Mexicana de Horticultura Protegida, A.C., Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 3 Filed: 04/14/2022
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) v. US 3
(“AMHPAC”), a named plaintiff in Confederacion. Jem D resells all three producer-exporters’ tomatoes in the United States under the name “Red Sun Farms.” On May 7, 2019, Commerce published notice in the Federal Register that it was withdrawing from the 2013 suspension agreement (“the 2013 agreement”). Fresh To- matoes From Mexico, 84 Fed. Reg. at 20,858 (May 13, 2019). Jem D filed its initial complaint in the Trade Court on July 18, 2019. On September 24, 2019, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published notice that it had en- tered into a new suspension agreement with the parties on September 24, 2019 (“the 2019 agreement”). Fresh Toma- toes From Mexico, 84 Fed. Reg. at 49,989 (Sept. 24, 2019). On December 23, 2019, Jem D filed an amended complaint in the Trade Court that raised three claims: (1) a challenge to Commerce’s decision to terminate the 2013 agreement for allegedly violating 19 U.S.C. § 1673c(i)’s statutory re- quirements; 1 (2) a challenge to Commerce’s continued in- vestigation for using an improper preliminary determination date; and (3) a challenge to the 2019 agree- ment for allegedly violating § 1673c(e)’s notice and com- ment requirements and for incorporating terms beyond those permitted by § 1673c. 2 The government moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness, lack of subject matter ju- risdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Trade Court granted the govern- ment’s motion and dismissed the action with prejudice on
1 This count also relied on Commerce’s regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.209(a), which are equivalent to the statute itself for purposes of this claim. 2 This count also relied on Commerce’s regulations, 19 C.F.R. § 351.208, which are equivalent to the statute it- self for purposes of this claim. Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 4 Filed: 04/14/2022
the ground that the case was moot. Jem D appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). DISCUSSION The appellants here, as in Confederacion, challenge the termination of the 2013 agreement. The Trade Court held that this claim was moot. Our decision in Confederacion resolves this claim. There, we conclude that, while we have jurisdiction over the claim and the claim is not moot, it was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm the Trade Court’s decision with respect to this claim. Jem D also challenges the continuation of the anti- dumping proceeding by Commerce. As we hold in Confed- eracion, the Trade Court has no jurisdiction over such an interim challenge except as part of a challenge to a final determination. 3 See 33 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 8361 (2d ed. 2021) (“[J]udicial review is available only for ‘final’ agency ac- tions.”); see also Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 782 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding agency deci- sion to initiate or continue proceedings cannot be reviewed until there is a final agency determination); Gov’t of Peo- ple’s Republic of China v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (holding appellants could challenge Commerce’s decision to initiate an investigation after publication of the final determination). Here, Jem D’s amended complaint raised no challenge to the final anti- dumping determination. Accordingly, the Trade Court
3 Congress contemplated that decisions such as “a preliminary affirmative antidumping . . . determination or a decision to exclude a particular exporter from an anti- dumping investigation,” would be reviewable “only in con- nection with the review of the final determination.” H.R. Rep. No. 96-1235, at 48 (1980). Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 5 Filed: 04/14/2022
JEM D INTERNATIONAL (MICHIGAN) v. US 5
lacked jurisdiction over this claim, and we affirm the Trade Court’s dismissal. Finally, Jem D challenges the 2019 agreement. Unlike the appellants in Confederacion, appellants here do not raise a duress claim, but instead contend that the 2019 agreement is invalid because it violates statutory require- ments. Jem D argues that in negotiating the 2019 agree- ment, Commerce failed to comply with § 1673c(e)’s notice and comment requirements. It also claims that the agree- ment impermissibly incorporated terms “unrelated to price,” which according to Jem D, are not permitted by § 1673c. 4 J.A. 70. But as the government points out, a summons for such a challenge must be filed “[w]ithin thirty days after[] the date of publication in the Federal Register of” notice of the suspension agreement, and a complaint must be filed “within thirty days thereafter.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A). The amended complaint here was not timely filed—the gov- ernment published notice of the 2019 agreement on Sep- tember 24, 2019, and Jem D did not file its amended complaint until December 23, 2019. The amended complaint cannot overcome this time-bar through relation back to the original, July 18, 2019, com- plaint because at that time, the Trade Court lacked juris- diction over Jem D’s challenge to the suspension agreement negotiations. See 6A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1496 (3d ed. 2021) (explaining there is no relation back for amended complaint when district court lacks subject mat- ter jurisdiction over claim in original pleading (citing Reyn- olds v. United States, 748 F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1984))).
4 This claim was added in Jem D’s amended com- plaint. Case: 21-1292 Document: 63 Page: 6 Filed: 04/14/2022
A claim challenging the negotiations for failing to comply with notice and comment requirements is an interim chal- lenge that could be brought only as part of a challenge to the September 24, 2019, final agreement. Accordingly, the Trade Court lacked jurisdiction over this claim, and we af- firm its dismissal. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.