Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co., Inc. v. United States

Summary

The Federal Circuit reviewed challenges to the Department of Commerce's refusal to initiate a second changed-circumstances review of an antidumping duty order covering extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. The court held that the Court of International Trade had residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) over the bankruptcy trustees' challenge, but not over Heveafil's challenge because Heveafil had an adequate alternative remedy under § 1581(c). The court further held that the trustees were judicially estopped from advocating a revocation date they had previously opposed successfully before Commerce.

Holdings

1. Heveafil could not invoke the CIT's residual jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) because jurisdiction under § 1581(c) was available and the remedy under that subsection was not manifestly inadequate.
2. The CIT had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) over NART's challenge to Commerce's refusal to initiate a second changed-circumstances review.
3. NART was judicially estopped from arguing before the CIT that the antidumping duty order should have been revoked effective October 1, 1995, because it had previously prevailed before Commerce on the contrary position that the effective date should be October 1, 2003.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of International Trade had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) over Heveafil's challenge to Commerce's refusal to initiate a second changed-circumstances review.
2. Whether the Court of International Trade had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) over NART's challenge to Commerce's refusal to initiate a second changed-circumstances review.
3. Whether NART was judicially estopped from advocating an October 1, 1995 revocation date after previously prevailing before Commerce on its position that the effective date should be October 1, 2003.

Disposition

other