CIT Says Failure to Timely File Complaint Isn't a Jurisdictional Issue
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Eaton added that the companies' failure to file the complaint "was the result of excusable neglect," reinstating the case over the government's objection. The judge reinstated the case in August, promising to deliver his reasoning for doing so at a later date (see 2508150049). The judge's Nov. 12 opinion fulfills that promise.
The case was filed by Vietnamese exporters, led by Ban Me Thuot Honeybee JSC, to contest the Commerce Department's 2021-23 administrative review of the AD order on raw honey from Vietnam. The complaint was due on June 12, 2025, and counsel for the exporters told the government it filed the complaint on June 2. While the exporters' counsel sent the DOJ attorneys a copy of the complaint and secured a preliminary injunction at CIT against the liquidation of the entries at issue on June 5, they never uploaded the complaint in the docket.
The trade court dismissed the case on June 16 for a lack of prosecution, and the exporters moved to vacate the dismissal. The U.S. contested this move on the grounds that the statutory requirement to file a complaint is a "jurisdictional requirement" and that the court "lacks jurisdiction to hear a case when the complaint is not filed by the statutory deadline."
Precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit backs the government's theory. In the Georgetown Steel v. U.S. decision issued in 1986, CAFC said the filing deadlines for complaints laid out in the U.S. Code were jurisdictional, since they specify (in the same section of the Code) the "terms and conditions upon which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity in consenting to be sued" and that those limits must be strictly observed.
Eaton noted that since Georgetown Steel has been decided, "the Supreme Court has clarified when a filing deadline is jurisdictional and when it is merely a 'claim-processing rule,'" adding that filing deadlines "are quintessential claim-processing rules." The judge said that while it's possible for a procedural rule to be jurisdictional, that can only be the case "if Congress has 'clearly state[d]' as much," adding that mandatory language alone may not "necessarily mean that a statute is jurisdictional."
Applying the principles laid out by the high court, Eaton said the filing deadline for complaints as established in 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(A) isn't jurisdictional. First, the statute uses "permissible language," providing that an interested party "may commence an action" at CIT by filing a summons and, within 30 days thereafter, a complaint. The statute doesn't have "any explicit language construing the statute’s time periods as jurisdictional," the court said.
Eaton also noted that the timing provision of the deadline is in Title 19 of the U.S. Code, while the court's grant of subject matter jurisdiction is in Title 28 of the U.S. code. Thus, the filing deadline is "separate from Congress’ grant of jurisdiction to this Court," indicating it's not jurisdictional, the court said. The judge concluded that it's "difficult to see how Georgetown could still be good law in light of the Supreme Court decisions that have been decided in the intervening years."
Turning to the court's standard for reinstating cases, namely whether the failure to file a complaint stemmed from "excusable neglect," Eaton held that the factors weighed in favor of finding excusable neglect. The judge noted that the government wasn't prejudiced by the late filing, whereas the exporters would be greatly prejudiced; the length of the delay was "minimal"; and the exporters clearly showed they acted in good faith. Despite the fact that the reason for the delay is unknown to the court, the exporters showed good faith by sending the complaint to the government "within the statutory time period for filing" and "promptly" filing a statutory injunction motion. And, the motion to set aside the dismissal was "immediately" filed following the dismissal, the court noted.
(Ban Me Thuot Honeybee JSC v. United States, Slip Op. 25-144, CIT # 25-00085, dated 11/12/25; Judge: Richard Eaton; Attorneys: Jonathan Freed of Trade Pacific for plaintiffs led by Ban Me Thuot Honeybee JSC; Natalee Allenbaugh for defendant U.S. government)