Thai Union Frozen Prods. Pub. Co. v. United States

Slip Op. 14- 46
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
THAI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS
PUBLIC CO., LTD., THAI UNION
SEAFOOD CO., LTD., THAI ROYAL
FROZEN FOOD CO., LTD., MARINE GOLD
PRODUCTS LIMITED, and PAKFOOD
PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED,
Plaintiffs,
.v. Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
UNITED STATES, Court No. 13-00330
Defendant,
COALITION OF GULF SHRIMP
INDUSTRIES,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION
[Motions to dismiss complaint challenging Commerce’s negative determination in countervailing
duty investigation granted.]
Dated: April23, 2014
Robert G. Gosselink, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for the plaintiffs.
Joshua E. Kurland, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for the defendant. With him on the brief were
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M.
McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Jessica M. Forton, Attorney, Office of
the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Elizabeth J. Drake, Terence P. Stewart, and Stephanie M. Bell, Stewart and
Stewart, of Washington, DC, and Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, of New Orleans,
LA, for the defendant-intervenors.
Court No. 13-00330 Page 2
Restani, Judge: This matter is before the court on two motions to dismiss filed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the United States Court of International Trade by defendant United
States and defendant-intervenor Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries (“COGSI”). Defendant-
Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss Case, ECF No. 20; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Case, ECF
No. 22. COGSI and the United States move to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiffs Thai
Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd., Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd., Thai Royal Frozen Food
Co., Ltd., Marine Gold Products Limited, and Pakfood Public Company Limited Royal Thai
because plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the Constitution as there is no live “case or
controversy.”
For the same reasons as those set out in the opinion in Royal Thai Government v.
United States, Ct. No. 13-00333, filed concurrently with this opinion, the motions to dismiss are
granted without prejudice. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish their arguments from those raised in
Royal Thai Government by speculating that cash deposits could be required in the future during
the time in between a hypothetical affirmative determination on remand by the U.S. Department
of Commerce (“Commerce”) and a negative determination by the International Trade
Commission. See Pls.’ Opp. to Mots. to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, 4 n.1. This argument is nothing
more than speculation at this point, as no actual “injury in fact” will ever accrue to plaintiffs
unless and until COGSI succeeds in its appeal before the court and Commerce renders an
affirmative final determination on remand; at present, all that plaintiffs could obtain in this action
would be an advisory opinion from the court, rather than any concrete relief. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, 16
CIT 1084, 810 F. Supp. 318, 322 (1992) (cautioning against advisory opinions).
Court No. 13-00330 Page 3
Judgment will issue accordingly.
/s/ Jane A. Restani
Jane A. Restani
Judge
Dated: April 23 , 2014
New York, New York