The opinion
Slip Op. 24-17
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA,
GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA,
GOVERNMENT OF QUÉBEC,
BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER
TRADE COUNCIL, FONTAINE,
INC., INTERFOR
CORPORATION, and INTERFOR
SALES & MARKETING, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
and
CANFOR CORPORATION,
CANADIAN FOREST
PRODUCTS, LTD., CANFOR
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
WOOD PRODUCTS
MARKETING, LTD.,
Consol. Court No. 23-00187
COMMITTEE OVERSEEING
ACTION FOR LUMBER
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
INVESTIGATIONS OR
NEGOTIATIONS, TOLKO
INDUSTRIES, LTD., TOLKO
MARKETING & SALES, LTD.,
GILBERT SMITH FOREST
PRODUCTS, LTD., RESOLUTE
FP CANADA, INC., THE
CONSEIL DE L'INDUSTRIE
FORESTIERE DU QUÉBEC, and
THE ONTARIO FOREST
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 2
and
CANFOR CORPORATION,
CANADIAN FOREST
PRODUCTS, LTD., CANFOR
WOOD PRODUCTS
MARKETING, LTD.,
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO,
CARRIER FOREST PRODUCTS,
LTD., CARRIER LUMBER, LTD.,
OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, ULC,
and WEST FRASER MILLS,
LTD.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
COMMITTEE OVERSEEING
ACTION FOR LUMBER
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
INVESTIGATIONS OR
NEGOTIATIONS and SIERRA
PACIFIC INDUSTRIES,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Granting the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motions to intervene as a
matter of right].
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 3
Dated: February 15, 2024
Eric S. Parnes, Alan G. Kashdan, Joanne E. Osendarp, Lynn G. Kamarck, and
Tyler J. Kimberly, Blank Rome, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff
Government of Canada.
Lynn M. Fischer Fox, Archana Rao Vasa, and Gina M. Colarusso, Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Government of Alberta.
Nancy A. Noonan, ArentFox Schiff, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff
Government of Québec.
Amy Lentz and Stephanie W. Wang, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, of Washington,
D.C., for Plaintiff British Columbia Lumber Trade Council.
Mark Burton Lehnardt, Law Offices of David L. Simon, PLLC, of Washington,
D.C., for Plaintiff Fontaine, Inc.
Diana Dimitriuc-Quaia, ArentFox Schiff, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs
Interfor Corporation and Interfor Sales & Marketing, Ltd. and Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenor Chaleur Forest Products, L.P. Mario A. Torrico and Matthew M. Nolan
also appeared.
Jay C. Campbell, White & Case, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenor J.D. Irving, Limited. Allison J. Gartner Kepkay and Walter J. Spak also
appeared.
Rudi W. Planert, Brady W. Mills, Donald B. Cameron, Eugene Degnan, Jordan L.
Fleischer, Julie C. Mendoza, Mary S. Hodgins, Nicholas C. Duffey, Ryan R.
Migeed, and Stephen A. Morrison, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors Canfor
Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., and Canfor Wood Products
Marketing, Ltd.
Henry D. Almond and Kang Woo Lee, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs Tolko Industries, Ltd., Tolko
Marketing & Sales, Ltd., and Gilbert Smith Forest Products, Ltd.
Elliot J. Feldman, Michael S. Snarr, Ronald J. Baumgarten, Jr., and Tung Anh
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 4
Nguyen, Baker Hostetler, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs
Resolute FP Canada, Inc., the Conseil de l’Industrie Forestiere du Québec, and the
Ontario Forest Industries Association.
Harold D. Kaplan and Jonathan T. Stoel, Hogan Lovells U.S., LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor Government of Ontario.
Jeffrey S. Grimson, Bryan P. Cenko, Evan P. Drake, Jill A. Cramer, Kristin H.
Mowry, Ronalda G. Smith, Sarah M. Wyss, and Yixin (Cleo) Li, Mowry &
Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenors Carrier Forest
Products, Ltd., Carrier Lumber, Ltd., Olympic Industries, Inc., and Olympic
Industries, ULC.
Donald Harrison and Ann C. Motto, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor West Fraser Mills, Ltd.
Rajib Pal, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors Delco Forest Products, Ltd., Devon Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe &
Sons, Ltd., Langevin Forest Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest
Products, Ltd., and Twin Rivers Paper Co., Inc.
Myles S. Getlan and Yohai Baisburd, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA), LLP of
Washington, D.C., for Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors AJ Forest Products, Ltd., ER
Probyn Export, Limited, Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P., and Scierie Alexandre
Lemay & Fils, Inc. James E. Ransdell, IV also appeared.
Stephen C. Tosini, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United
States. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Claudia Burke, Deputy
Director. Of counsel on the brief was Elio Gonzalez, Attorney, Office of the Chief
of Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Zachary J. Walker, Jessica M. Link, Andrew W. Kentz, Nathaniel Maandig
Rickard, Whitney M. Rolig, and David A. Yocis, Picard, Kentz, & Rowe, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenor Committee
Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations.
Sophia J.C. Lin also appeared.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 5
David J. Ross, Jeffrey I. Kessler, Stephanie E. Hartmann, Wilmer, Cutler,
Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP, of Washington, D.C., and Kanzanira Thorington,
Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant
Intervenor Sierra Pacific Industries, including its subsidiary Seneca Sawmill
Company.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This case has wide implications for whether litigants
will have standing to intervene as a matter of right at the U.S. Court of
International Trade (“CIT”). The Court addresses several motions to intervene as
of right filed by importers, producers, and exporters pursuant to USCIT Rule 24
and 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) in a consolidated action challenging the fourth
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber
products from Canada conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”). See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 88 Fed.
Reg. 50,106 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 1, 2023) (final results of antidumping duty
administrative review and final determination of no shipments; 2021). Although
the USCIT rule and statute for intervention have existed for decades, this case is
notable because Defendant United States (“Defendant” or “the Government”)
recently changed its position (from previously consenting for decades to
intervention as of right for importers, producers, and exporters) and now appears to
be arguing for the first time that requests for administrative review are inadequate,
and parties must file factual information in support of allegations in order to
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 6
intervene as a matter of right on appeal before the CIT.
In the unique setting of international trade disputes, parties requesting an
administrative review are not regularly selected by Commerce. The non-selected
companies generally do not file administrative case briefs because Commerce
analyzes only company-specific data for selected mandatory respondents, and the
non-selected companies do not yet have specific legal arguments to make, other
than the arguments implicit in their requests for administrative review that they
disagree with the duty rate applied during the period of review and would like to
have a more favorable rate. The non-selected companies wait for Commerce to
complete its administrative review of the mandatory selected companies. When
Commerce issues its final determination applying an antidumping duty rate to the
non-selected companies (the “all-others rate”) together with its reasoning from the
administrative review, the non-selected companies are then affected by the
outcome of Commerce’s final determination.
If the non-selected companies intervene as a matter of right in the appeal
before the CIT, the non-selected companies may assert legal arguments and take
advantage of any changes to the antidumping duty rates that may occur as a result
of the CIT litigation. The non-selected respondents are limited in the arguments
that they may raise if allowed to intervene because the doctrine of exhaustion only
allows the CIT to entertain arguments that were exhausted during the
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 7
administrative proceedings below, which means that the non-selected respondents
generally are limited to “me too” type arguments in support of the plaintiffs’ legal
arguments before the CIT. Allowing non-selected respondents to intervene in
litigation before the CIT does not place additional burdens on the Court due to the
overlap in issues.
Intervention as a matter of right in international trade cases is not provided
in a vacuum, but is provided as the only opportunity for non-selected respondents
to obtain the benefit of any changes to the all-others rate as a result of litigation
before the CIT. If non-selected companies are foreclosed from participating as a
party in CIT appeals, they will not be able to take advantage of any changes to the
antidumping duty rates that might occur through litigation at the CIT and will be
forced to adhere to the original, pre-litigation all-others rate imposed in the final
determination, unless Commerce decides on its own to apply the all-others rate to
everyone. Intervention as a matter of right for non-mandatory, non-selected
respondents is the only path to obtaining any court-ordered benefit from changes to
the all-others rate. Thus, it would appear that the only practical consequence of
denying non-selected respondents the right to intervene is that they will be unable
to benefit from any favorable court decisions.
In this case, the importers and foreign producers/exporters did not file
administrative case briefs, but instead filed requests for administrative review that
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 8
contained information about their exports/imports of subject merchandise during
the period of review, entries of appearance in the administrative review, and
applications for administrative protective orders.
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor Committee Overseeing Action
for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations (“Defendant-
Intervenor”) argue that these filings before the agency were insufficient to satisfy
Commerce’s regulations for “party to the proceeding” because the filings were
neither “written arguments” nor “factual information” as required by Commerce’s
regulations 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii).
Notably, the Government and Defendant-Intervenor do not oppose the motion to
intervene of one party, J.D. Irving, Limited (“J.D. Irving”), who filed an
administrative case brief.
There appear to be very few published cases from this Court or the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) addressing the requirements
that must be satisfied for importers and foreign producers/exporters to intervene as
of right before the Court, mainly because motions to intervene have been routinely
unopposed and granted by the Court for decades, until the Government recently
changed its position on the issue.1
1
There is one unpublished case from the CAFC upholding the right of foreign
steel pipe manufacturers to intervene as a matter of right. Laclede Steel Co. v.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 9
The importers and foreign producers/exporters argue in support of their
motions to intervene that the Government’s and Defendant-Intervenor’s proposed
interpretation of the statute and regulations requiring the filing of an administrative
case brief or similar written arguments at the agency level in order to litigate
before the CIT is unconstitutional because the regulations deprive the Parties of
due process, are contrary to legislative intent, and lead to absurd, unfair results.2
For the reasons discussed below, the Court holds that parties who file a
request for administrative review satisfy the statutory “party to a proceeding”
standing requirement, even without filing an administrative case brief.
Furthermore, the Court holds that Commerce’s regulations 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21), when applied to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j)(1)(B) (“the standing statute”), conflict with the statute and are not in
United States (“Laclede Steel”), 1996 WL 384010 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 1996). The
CIT did not issue an opinion in the Laclede Steel case regarding the motion to
intervene, and the Government did not oppose intervention as a matter of right by
the non-selected respondents in Laclede Steel.
2
Chaleur Forest Products, Inc., Chaleur Forest Products, L.P., Delco Forest
Products, Ltd., Devon Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe & Sons, Ltd., Langevin
Forest Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest Products, Ltd., and
Twin Rivers Paper Co., Inc. argue that denying importers standing to intervene
under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) creates serious constitutional problems by
potentially depriving them of property (i.e., excess cash deposits held by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to which they are entitled) without
due process of law. The Court agrees that this is problematic but does not need to
reach this argument.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 10
accordance with law. Accordingly, the Court grants the motions to intervene.
BACKGROUND
Motions to intervene as a matter of right were filed by AJ Forest Products,
Ltd., ER Probyn Export, Limited, Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P., and Scierie
Alexandre Lemay & Fils, Inc., (foreign exporters and producers) (collectively, “AJ
Respondents”) (“AJ Respondents’ Motion to Intervene” or “AJ Respondents’ Mot.
Interv.”), ECF No. 59, and Chaleur Forest Products, Inc., Chaleur Forest Products,
L.P., Delco Forest Products, Ltd., Devon Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe & Sons,
Ltd., Langevin Forest Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest
Products, Ltd., and Twin Rivers Paper Co., Inc. (foreign exporters and producers,
and domestic importers) (collectively, “NB Respondents”) (“NB Respondents’
Motion to Intervene” or “NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv.”), ECF No. 69. The NB
Respondents also filed similar motions in Court No. 23-00188, ECF No. 72, Court
No. 23-00204, ECF No. 41, and Court No. 23-00206, ECF No. 37. These court
numbers were consolidated into this consolidated case on December 4, 2023.
Order (Dec. 4, 2023), ECF No. 89. J.D. Irving joined in the NB Respondents’
Motion to Intervene.
The Government of Canada, Government of Québec, British Columbia
Lumber Trade Council, Fontaine, Inc., Interfor Corporation, and Interfor Sales &
Marketing, Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) served their complaint on October 6,
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 11
2023.3 Compl., ECF No. 15. Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd.,
and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd. served their complaint on October 2,
2023. Court No. 23-00188, Compl., ECF No. 10. Tolko Industries, Ltd., Tolko
Marketing and Sales, Ltd., and Gilbert Smith Forest Products, Ltd. served their
complaint on October 27, 2023. Court No. 23-00204, Compl., ECF No. 13.
Resolute FP Canada, Inc., the Conseil de l’Industrie Forestiere du Québec, and the
Ontario Forest Industries Association served their complaint on November 1,
2023.4 Court No. 23-00206, Compl., ECF No. 9.
Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor filed briefs in opposition to the AJ
Respondents’ and NB Respondents’ (collectively, “Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors”) motions to intervene. Def.’s Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv.,
ECF No. 81; Def.’s Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv., ECF No. 82; Def.-
Interv.’s Resp. AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv., ECF No. 83; Def.-Interv.’s Resp.
Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv., ECF No. 84.
The Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors filed replies to Defendant’s and
3
Government of Alberta is not listed in the Complaint even though it is listed in
the Summons and other documents filed before and after the filing of the
Complaint as one of the Plaintiffs.
4
Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd., Canfor Wood Products
Marketing, Ltd., Tolko Industries, Ltd., Tolko Marketing and Sales, Ltd., Gilbert
Smith Forest Products, Ltd., Resolute FP Canada, Inc., the Conseil de l’Industrie
Forestiere du Québec, and the Ontario Forest Industries Association are
Consolidated Plaintiffs under Consol. Court No. 23-00187.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 12
Defendant-Intervenor’s oppositions. AJ Respondents’ Reply Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s
Cmts. Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv., ECF No. 90; NB Respondents’ Reply
Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s Resps. Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv., ECF No. 91.
DISCUSSION
In 28 U.S.C. § 2631, Congress established a right to intervene in actions
commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. The Court’s standing statute provides that:
Any person who would be adversely affected or aggrieved by a decision
in a civil action pending in the [CIT] may, by leave of court, intervene
in such action, except that . . . (B) in a civil action under [19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a], only an interested party who was a party to the proceeding in
connection with which the matter arose may intervene, and such person
may intervene as a matter of right.
28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B).
Under USCIT Rule 24(a), a party may intervene in an action upon timely
application “when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to
intervene.” To succeed on a motion to intervene, the proposed intervenors in
actions filed pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a must show that each 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 [CIT],” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j)(1), and “was a party to the proceeding in connection with which the
matter arose,” 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B).
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 13
I. Party to the Proceeding
The Parties focus their dispute on whether the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors
have standing as parties to the proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B).5
The Court has interpreted the “party to the proceeding” standing requirement as a
form of participation that “reasonably convey[s] the separate status of a party, . . .
and provide[s] Commerce with notice of a party’s concerns.” Specialty Merch.
Corp. v. United States, 31 CIT 364, 365, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1361 (2007)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Participation in the administrative
process, however, does not have to be extensive. RHI Refractories Liaoning Co. v.
United States, 35 CIT 130, 132, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1380 (2011) (citing Laclede
Steel, 1996 WL 384010, at *2). The Court has also noted that the “party to the
proceeding” requirement for standing is not onerous. Hor Liang Indus. Corp. v.
United States, 42 CIT __, 337 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1318 (2018). Commerce’s
regulations do not control this Court’s construction of a statute administered by the
5
It is undisputed that: (1) the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors filed their timely
motions to intervene within 30 days of Plaintiffs’ service of the Complaint; (2) the
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are interested parties because they are Canadian
producers and exporters, or domestic importers, of softwood lumber, the subject
merchandise of the underlying antidumping administrative review; and (3) the
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors could be adversely affected by the decision pending
before the CIT because they are subject to the all-others rate that was calculated
based on the antidumping duty rates of the mandatory respondents.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 14
Court itself. See id. (“Chevron6 deference does not apply to Commerce’s
regulatory definition [of “party to a proceeding”] because Commerce does not
administer the standing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2631.”).
II. Notice of the Parties’ Concerns
To satisfy the “party to the proceeding” standing requirement, the Proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors must have reasonably conveyed their separate status and
provided Commerce with notice of their concerns. Specialty Merch. Corp., 31 CIT
at 365, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 1361; RHI Refractories Liaoning Co., 35 CIT at 132,
752 F. Supp. 2d at 1381.
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor do not challenge the Proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ separate status, but assert that the Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors’ requests for administrative review did not sufficiently put Commerce
on notice of the Parties’ concerns. The Government and Defendant-Intervenor
argue that the requests for administrative review did not contain statements of fact
in support of allegations (i.e., legal arguments as one would find in an
administrative case brief). Def.’s Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 2‒3;
Def.-Interv.’s Resp. AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 5‒6; Def.’s Opp’n NB
Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 3‒4; Def.-Interv.’s Resp. Opp’n NB Respondents’
6
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 15
Mot. Interv. at 5‒6.
At the outset, the Court questions the Government’s recent change in
position after more than thirty years of consenting to intervention motions of non-
selected respondents brought before the Court. Now, apparently for the first time,
the Government claims that Commerce was not on notice of the Parties’ concerns
because the Parties did not file sufficient factual information in support of
allegations (i.e., administrative case briefs).
The Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors are U.S. importers and Canadian
producers/exporters of softwood lumber, who argue that they qualify as parties to
the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) because in their written requests
for administrative review, they provided factual information regarding their entries
of subject merchandise during the period of review from January 1, 2021, through
December 31, 2021. AJ Respondents’ Reply Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s Cmts. Opp’n AJ
Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 2, 6‒7; Def.’s Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at
Ex. 1, ECF No. 82-1; NB Respondents’ Reply Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s Resps. Opp’n
NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 4. The requests for administrative review
included statements of fact with the names of the requesting entities, whether the
entities produced, exported, remanufactured, and/or were importers of record of
subject merchandise to the United States within the period of review, and the
nature of the relationships between the requesting entities (e.g., whether one entity
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 16
was the exporter for another entity). NB Respondents’ Reply Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s
Resps. Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 4.
None of the U.S. importers or foreign producers/exporters were selected for
individual review, but the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors contend that Commerce
used the factual information when Commerce initiated the administrative reviews,
selected mandatory respondents, and assigned a final antidumping duty rate to the
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors. AJ Respondents’ Reply Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s Cmts.
Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 6‒7. The Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors
explain that the importers, producers, and exporters requested administrative
reviews in order to make known to Commerce their disagreement with their
existing dumping margins and interest in obtaining new dumping margins for their
affected exports for the applicable period of review. NB Respondents’ Reply
Def.’s Def.-Interv.’s Resps. Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 7. The NB
Respondents state that the factual information provided to Commerce indicated
their willingness to participate in the review, including through providing factual
information if and when requested by Commerce, or to otherwise be subjected to a
dumping margin in that review based on adverse facts available. Id. The NB
Respondents note that, “once foreign producers/exporters request a review, they
are obligated to participate or face adverse consequences. No other interested
party is in a similar situation by virtue of having submitted their own review
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 17
request.” Id.
The NB Respondents contend that when foreign producers/exporters are
routinely not selected by Commerce for individual review, the foreign
producers/exporters “would have no reason to devote resources to submit
additional and unnecessary factual material or argumentation to [Commerce].
Specifically, those companies would have no reason to comment on the company-
specific price and cost data that the mandatory respondents submit to assist
[Commerce] in calculating their company-specific dumping margins.” Id. at 10.
Similarly, the NB Respondents argue that the U.S. importers filed requests
for review in the antidumping proceeding to “make known to [Commerce] that
they disagree with having their entries of subject merchandise during the [period of
review] from specified foreign producers/exporters liquidated at the cash deposit
rate paid upon entry, and instead are interested in obtaining a new assessment rate
for their affected entries during the [period of review].” Id. at 8.
The factual information provided in the requests for administrative review
by the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors clearly was submitted in anticipation of
litigation regarding the non-selected margin rates that would later be applied by
Commerce, as well as to provide information for Commerce’s selection of
mandatory respondents. See Laclede Steel, 1996 WL 384010, at *2 (holding that
foreign producers/proposed plaintiff-intervenors who were subject to the all-others
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 18
rate participated actively in the administrative proceeding when they submitted
factual data about their exports to assist Commerce in the selection of mandatory
respondents). The Laclede Steel Court explained that although the active
participation need not be extensive, it must reasonably convey the separate status
of a party, and the participation should be meaningful enough. Id. Only the
plaintiff opposed intervention in Laclede Steel, and the Government notably
consented to intervention as of right by the foreign producers who submitted
requests for administrative review without filing administrative case briefs. Id. at
*1.
By requesting administrative reviews of themselves in the antidumping duty
proceeding in this case, the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors put Commerce on notice
of: 1) their disagreement with the existing dumping margins and the cash deposit
rates paid during the period of review; 2) their interest in obtaining a more
favorable margin rate; 3) their willingness to provide more information if selected
by Commerce for administrative review (or be subjected to adverse facts available
for not cooperating); and 4) information that assisted Commerce in its selection of
mandatory respondents.
The Court is not persuaded by the Government’s argument that Commerce
lacked notice of the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors’ concerns in the requests for
administrative review. It is simply not credible or reasonable in the context of
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 19
international trade litigation, after decades under the same statutory framework,
that here Commerce did not understand the significance of the Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors’ filing of information objecting to the existing dumping margins and
the cash deposit rates paid during the period of review and asking to be selected for
administrative review in order to obtain more favorable rates. The Government’s
position contradicts decades of Commerce’s practice regarding intervention as a
matter of right for non-selected respondents. Thus, the Court concludes that the
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors met the statutory requirement for standing as parties
to the proceeding by participation that reasonably provided Commerce with notice
of the Parties’ concerns. Specialty Merch. Corp., 31 CIT at 365, 477 F. Supp. 2d at
1361.
As noted earlier, if non-selected companies are prevented from intervening
in CIT appeals, they will not be able to take advantage of any changes to the
antidumping duty rates that might occur through litigation at the CIT (and on
appeal at the CAFC) and will be forced to accept the original, pre-litigation all-
others rate imposed in the final determination. Intervention for non-mandatory,
non-selected respondents is the only path to obtaining a benefit from any changes
to the all-others rate that the Court may order during litigation at the CIT.
Accordingly, the Court holds that parties who file a request for
administrative review, without filing an administrative case brief, meet the
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 20
statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) and shall have standing to
intervene as a matter of right in litigation before the CIT.
III. Regulations Conflict with the CIT’s Standing Statute
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor argue that none of the Proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors are entitled to intervene as a matter of right, other than J.D.
Irving, because they did not file administrative case briefs and only submitted
requests for administrative review, entries of appearance, and applications for an
administrative protective order, and thus were not parties to the proceeding
because the submissions were neither “written arguments” nor “factual
information” as required by 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(21)(ii). Def.’s Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 1‒4; Def.-
Interv.’s Resp. Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 5‒6; Def.-Interv.’s Resp.
AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 5‒7; Def.’s Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv.
at 2‒3.
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor rely on Commerce’s regulation
19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36), which defines “a party to the proceeding” as “any
interested party that actively participates, through written submissions of factual
information or written argument, in a segment of a proceeding.” 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(36). The Government also relies on regulation 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(21)(ii) for the definition of “factual information” as “[e]vidence,
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 21
including statements of fact, documents, and data submitted either in support of
allegations, or, to rebut, clarify, or correct such evidence submitted by any other
interested party.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii); Def.’s Opp’n NB Respondents’
Mot. Interv. at 3.
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor contend that the Proposed
Plaintiff-Intervenors’ requests for administrative review may have contained
factual information, but such facts were purportedly not submitted in support of
allegations as required by Commerce’s regulations because the filings requesting
administrative review did not contain clear legal arguments (as opposed to an
administrative case brief). The Government’s interpretation of these regulations
now holds little sway with the Court given that for decades, the Government has
consented to intervention and only started to oppose intervention for the first time
in this case.
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor assert that J.D. Irving is the only
interested party out of all the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors who is entitled to
intervene as a matter of right because J.D. Irving filed an administrative case brief
during the administrative proceeding.
With respect to the Government’s and Defendant-Intervenor’s arguments
that Commerce’s regulations should control, the Court confirms that it is not
compelled to use the definition of “party to the proceeding” appearing in
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 22
Commerce’s regulation at 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36), nor the definitions of
“written arguments” or “factual information” appearing in 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21), when interpreting the text of the
Court’s standing statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B). Commerce’s regulations do
not control this Court’s construction of a statute administered by the Court itself.
See Hor Liang Indus. Corp., 42 CIT at __; 337 F. Supp. 3d at 1318 (“Chevron
deference does not apply to Commerce’s regulatory definition [of “party to a
proceeding”] because Commerce does not administer the standing statute, 28
U.S.C. § 2631.”).
The Government and Defendant-Intervenor rely heavily on Dongkuk Steel
Mill Co. v. United States (“Dongkuk Steel”), 46 CIT __, 567 F. Supp. 3d 1359
(2022), in which the Court concluded that a domestic producer’s request for
administrative review did not include factual information in support of allegations
under Commerce’s definitions of “written arguments” and “factual information”
appearing in 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21), found
that the domestic producer did not have standing as a party to the proceeding, and
denied the domestic producer’s motion to intervene as of right in the CIT litigation.
Dongkuk Steel, 46 CIT at __, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 1364. Relying on Dongkuk Steel
and its interpretation of Commerce’s regulations, the Government argues that
“party to the proceeding” requires active participation beyond a request for
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 23
administrative review through the filing of factual information in support of
allegations. Def.’s Opp’n AJ Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 3; Def.’s Opp’n NB
Respondents’ Mot. Interv. at 3‒4. In the Dongkuk Steel case, the Government
consented to the domestic producer’s motion to intervene, even though the
producer only filed a request for administrative review and did not file an
administrative case brief (consistent with the Government’s prior position for
decades), with only the plaintiff opposing the motion to intervene. The party
seeking to intervene in Dongkuk Steel did not argue that the regulations were
contrary to law.
This Court is not persuaded to follow Dongkuk Steel, which is inapplicable
to this case. First, Dongkuk Steel involved a motion to intervene by a domestic
producer, and the instant case involves U.S. importers and foreign
producers/exporters, whose legal and economic interests are different than those of
domestic producers. The importers and foreign producers/exporters in this case
requested administrative reviews of themselves, which triggered certain
ramifications impacting their applicable duty rates and cash deposits paid, as
explained above, while the domestic producer in Dongkuk Steel requested
administrative reviews of other companies under the relevant countervailing duty
order.
Second, the Court notes that it is unreasonable to conclude that after decades
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 24
of agency practice and CIT precedent under the same statutory framework,
Commerce suddenly did not understand the significance of the request for
administrative review filed by the domestic producer in Dongkuk Steel. It is clear
that Commerce was on notice of the domestic producer’s concerns when it filed its
request for administrative review, particularly as the Government did not object to
intervention by right of the domestic producer in Dongkuk Steel. See Specialty
Merch. Corp., 31 CIT at 365, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 1361; RHI Refractories Liaoning
Co., 35 CIT at 132, 752 F. Supp. 2d at 1381.
Third, as noted earlier, the Court does not rely on Commerce’s definition of
“party to the proceeding” appearing in 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36), nor the
definitions of “written arguments” or “factual information” appearing in 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21) when interpreting the text of the
Court’s standing statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B). The Dongkuk Steel Court
relied on Commerce’s regulations, but this Court construes 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j)(1)(B) without reliance on Commerce’s regulations because the Court’s
standing statute is properly administered by the Court itself. See Hor Liang Indus.
Corp., 42 CIT at __, 337 F. Supp. 3d at 1318, n.11.
The Court concludes that Commerce’s regulations 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii), when applied to the Court’s
standing statute 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B), are not in accordance with law.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 25
The Court’s standing statute requires that the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors
must establish that each was “a party to the proceeding in connection with which
the matter arose” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) in order to be allowed to
intervene as a matter of right. Although 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B) does not define
“party to the proceeding,” Congress explained its legislative intent that in
antidumping duty cases, it “intended that the term ‘party to the proceeding’ mean
any person who participated in the administrative proceeding.” S. Rep. No. 96‒
249, at 633 (1979) (emphasis added). When Congress amended the statute in
1979, Congress expressed its intent to permit “greater access to the [CIT] for an
expanded number of parties” by including foreign manufacturers, producers,
exporters, and/or United States importers of the merchandise that is the subject of
an investigation. Id. at 632. Congress expressed this intent by adding new sections
regarding challenges to antidumping duty determinations to the Tariff Act of 1930,
and enlarged the class of persons who could initiate actions and participate in
litigation to include foreign countries, exporters, trade associations, and
organizations that are affected by these determinations. Id. at 636. Congress
explained that:
In addition, the new section 516A would greatly expand the right of
interested parties to appear and be heard in litigation concerning
antidumping and countervailing duties. For example, under [the 1930
law], an importer is not permitted to appear as a party-in-interest in a
suit challenging the failure to impose a countervailing duty instituted
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 26
by an American manufacturer pursuant to section 516(D) (19 U.S.C.
[§] 1516(D)) even though the importer would be affected by a court
decision holding that a countervailing duty should have been imposed.
Under the proposed section 516A, if an importer participated in the
administrative proceedings which preceded the challenged decision, it
would possess a right to be notified of the institution of litigation
challenging the decision and to appear and be heard as if it were a
party—not simply as an amicus curiae.
Id. (emphasis added). It is clear that Congress’ stated intent in the 1979
Amendments was to expand access to the CIT for a wider category of litigants,
including “any person who participated in the administrative proceeding” and
“importer[s] [who] participated in the administrative proceedings.” Id. (emphasis
added). While Congress did not define “party to the proceeding,” the Court
observes that Congress could have, but clearly chose not to, include more stringent
requirements with language mentioning written submissions, factual information,
written argument, statements of fact in support of allegations, or other
requirements similar to those proposed by the Government and Defendant-
Intervenor for a litigant to have standing to litigate before the Court.
Commerce’s regulatory definition of “party to a proceeding” prior to 1989
did not include the language “actively participates, through written submission of
factual information or written argument.” See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 353.12(i) (“‘Party
to the proceeding’ means: . . . (3) foreign manufacturers, producers and exporters
of the merchandise subject to the investigation; and (4) any other interested party,
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 27
within the meaning of paragraph (c) of this section, who informs the Secretary in
writing of his intent to become a party to the proceeding within 20 days after the
preliminary determination or who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary
good cause for intervention.”). 19 C.F.R. § 353.12(i) (1980).
On December 27, 1988, Commerce issued a Federal Register notice
indicating its intent to amend the definition of “party to a proceeding” to add the
language “actively participates” to 19 C.F.R. § 355. Countervailing Duties, 53
Fed. Reg. 52,306 (Dep’t of Commerce, Dec. 27, 1988). Notably, the Federal
Register notice reflected significant opposition to adding the “actively participates”
language to the definition of “party to a proceeding,” as follows:
Comment: All parties commenting on this section object to the
limitation of “parties to the proceeding” to those which participate in a
particular decision by the Secretary through the submission of factual
information or written argument. The parties generally argue that the
provision is an attempt by [Commerce] to define, without statutory
authority, the jurisdiction of federal courts. One party argues that the
provision is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority to
define the jurisdiction of Article III courts. Others argue that the
definition is too limited; U.S. and state courts have held that a party not
actively participating in a proceeding has a right to appeal a decision
reached in the court of that proceeding.
Others argue that the provision is not in accordance with Congress’
intention of streamlining and reducing the cost of countervailing duty
proceedings, and will result in needless duplication of effort by
interested parties through protective filings. . . .
[Commerce’s] Position: [Commerce] must define the term “party to the
proceeding.” . . . As to the arguments that [Commerce] is attempting
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 28
to limit a party’s right to appeal to the court, we believe the comments
prove too much. It is the province of Congress to regulate trade, but
that does not argue that [Commerce] has no authority to interpret
statutory enactments on trade matters through its regulations. . . . We
believe the court will benefit from the agency’s expertise as to the
minimum participation in the administrative process that will make
possible the party’s exhaustion of its administrative remedies, so that
the time of the court and the parties will not be spent needlessly on
matters that could have been addressed and resolved by the agency in
the first instance. The court may disagree in the circumstances of a
particular case that adherence to the regulatory requirements was
consistent with Congressional intent, but that does not argue for
ignoring our obligation to ensure, to the extent possible, the orderly,
efficient, and equitable implementation of the law.
53 Fed. Reg. at 52,308 (emphasis added). Commerce’s definition of “party to a
proceeding,” which went into effect on January 26, 1989, included the added
requirements that a party “actively” participate through “written submissions.” 19
C.F.R. § 353.2(o). The section number changed in 1998 to move the definition for
“party to a proceeding” from 19 C.F.R. § 353.2(o) to 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b).
The Court agrees with the commenters who questioned Commerce’s
explanation in the Federal Register notice above because 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B)
is the Court’s standing statute, which should be properly administered by the Court
itself, and is not an area requiring the agency’s technical expertise. See Hor Liang
Indus. Corp., 42 CIT at __, 337 F. Supp. 3d at 1318, n.11.
In addition, the Government in this litigation is now seeking to narrow the
definition of “party to a proceeding” even further, by proposing that regulation 19
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 29
C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii) requires not only a written submission, but the new
addition of “factual information” as “statements of fact” submitted “in support of
allegations.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii); Def.’s Opp’n NB Respondents’ Mot.
Interv. at 3. It is clear that the Government seeks to depart from decades of
precedent by attempting to devise a new requirement that a “party to the
proceeding” must submit an administrative case brief under the guise of
regulations 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii). The
Government’s position would lead to the absurd result of increasing paperwork and
raising the cost of litigation by requiring non-selected respondents in every
international trade case to file administrative case briefs, which contradicts the
goals of streamlining and expediting the litigation process. See USCIT Rule 1
promoting the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.”
The Court holds that regulations 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(21)(ii), when applied to the Court’s standing statute 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j)(1)(B), conflict in at least four ways: 1) the regulations are examples of
Commerce attempting to regulate an area squarely within the Court’s purview, the
Court’s jurisdictional standing statute; 2) the regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36)
includes added requirements of “active” participation and “written submissions”
that do not appear in the statute 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B); 3) the regulation 19
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 30
C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(21)(ii) includes stringent requirements of “statements of fact”
submitted “in support of allegations” that do not appear in the statute 28 U.S.C.
§ 2631(j)(1)(B); and 4) Commerce’s regulations narrow the definition of “party to
a proceeding” in conflict with Congress’ expressed intent that access to the CIT
should be expanded rather than limited. S. Rep. No. 96‒249, at 633.
The Court holds that Commerce’s definition of “party to the proceeding” as
expressed in regulations 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(36) and 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.102(b)(21)(ii), when applied to 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B), is not in
accordance with law.7
CONCLUSION
The Court is cognizant of Congress’ intent, unchanged for decades, to
expand access to the CIT to a greater number of litigants, rather than closing the
courthouse doors to litigants.
Allowing the Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenors to intervene as a matter of right
based on the submission of requests for administrative review comports with
decades of agency practice and CIT precedent, and is consistent with
Congressional intent that “party to the proceeding” shall be “any person who
7
The Parties might choose to bring an interlocutory appeal of the intervention as a
matter of right issue to the CAFC. The Court is willing to certify the question to
the CAFC and stay the case if the parties seek an interlocutory appeal.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 31
participated in the administrative proceeding.” S. Rep. No. 96‒249, at 633.
The Court concludes that parties who submit requests for administrative
review meet the low bar to satisfy the statutory requirement for standing under 28
U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court grants the Proposed Plaintiff-
Intervenors’ motions to intervene as a matter of right.
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 32
ORDER
It is hereby:
ORDERED that the AJ Respondents’ Motion to Intervene, Consolidated
Court No. 23-00187, ECF No. 59, is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the NB Respondents’ Motions to Intervene, Consolidated
Court No. 23-00187, ECF No. 69, Court No. 23-00188, ECF No. 72, Court No. 23-
00204, ECF No. 41, and Court No. 23-00206, ECF No. 37 are granted; and it is
further
ORDERED that AJ Forest Products, Ltd., ER Probyn Export, Limited,
Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P., Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils, Inc., Chaleur Forest
Products, Inc., Chaleur Forest Products, L.P., Delco Forest Products, Ltd., Devon
Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe & Sons, Ltd., J.D. Irving, Limited, Langevin Forest
Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest Products, Ltd., and Twin
Rivers Paper Co., Inc. are entered as Plaintiff-Intervenors in Government of
Canada v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 23-00187; and it is further
ORDERED that AJ Forest Products, Ltd., ER Probyn Export, Limited,
Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P., Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils, Inc., Chaleur Forest
Products, Inc., Chaleur Forest Products, L.P., Delco Forest Products, Ltd., Devon
Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe & Sons, Ltd., J.D. Irving, Limited, Langevin Forest
Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest Products, Ltd., and Twin
Consol. Court No. 23-00187 Page 33
Rivers Paper Co., Inc. may file, in accordance with ECF No. 98, motions for
judgment on the agency record and supporting memoranda of points and
authorities (not to exceed 21,000 words) on or before April 5, 2024; and it is
further
ORDERED that AJ Forest Products, Ltd., ER Probyn Export, Limited,
Rayonier A.M. Canada G.P., Scierie Alexandre Lemay & Fils, Inc., Chaleur Forest
Products, Inc., Chaleur Forest Products, L.P., Delco Forest Products, Ltd., Devon
Lumber Co., Ltd., H.J. Crabbe & Sons, Ltd., J.D. Irving, Limited, Langevin Forest
Products, Inc., Marwood, Ltd., North American Forest Products, Ltd., and Twin
Rivers Paper Co., Inc. may file reply briefs (not to exceed 10,000 words) on or
before October 10, 2024.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: February 15, 2024
New York, New York