## Facts

- Congress enacted the NAFTA Implementation Act (NIA), including § 102(c), barring private causes of action “under” NAFTA, and § 408, limiting application of later antidumping/countervailing-duty (AD/CVD) amendments to NAFTA goods unless the amendment expressly so provides.
- Congress enacted the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to distribute collected AD/CVD duties to “affected domestic producers.”
- CBP distributed offsets funded by duties collected on imports from Canada (including softwood lumber, magnesium, and wheat).
- Canadian producer groups, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), and others sued in the Court of International Trade (CIT) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging CBP acted unlawfully because CDSOA lacked an express statement applying it to NAFTA-country goods as required by NIA § 408.
- The CIT found, among other things, that the CWB had standing based on alleged competitive injury from CDSOA-funded promotional activity by a U.S. entity, and enjoined certain CDSOA distributions tied to Canadian imports.
- While the litigation proceeded, Congress repealed the CDSOA, but distributions for certain prior entries continued.
- The United States and intervenors appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

## Issues

1. Whether the CWB had Article III standing based on alleged competitive harm from CDSOA payments made to a U.S. promotional entity rather than a direct seller-competitor.
2. Whether NIA § 102(c) foreclosed an APA action challenging CBP’s administration of the CDSOA as inconsistent with NIA § 408.
3. Whether the CDSOA is an “amendment” to AD/CVD laws that, under NIA § 408, applies to NAFTA-country goods only if the CDSOA expressly specifies such application.
4. Whether repeal of the CDSOA and completed distributions rendered some plaintiffs’ claims moot and required narrowing the scope of injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held the CWB had standing because it plausibly alleged competitive injury from CDSOA-funded promotion benefiting U.S. wheat interests.
- The court held the CWB could proceed under the APA because the claim was grounded in a domestic statutory limitation (NIA § 408), not a private attempt to enforce NAFTA.
- The court held the CDSOA did not apply to imports from NAFTA countries because it functioned as an AD/CVD amendment but did not expressly state it applied to NAFTA goods, as § 408 requires.
- The court affirmed the core statutory interpretation ruling, but vacated and remanded portions of the judgment to address mootness and to limit relief to claims and parties presenting a live controversy.

## Legal Principles

- NAFTA is non-self-executing in U.S. courts; NIA § 102(c) bars private claims framed as enforcing NAFTA or asserting inconsistency with NAFTA “by virtue of” congressional approval.
- An APA action may proceed where plaintiffs challenge agency action as contrary to an independent domestic statute that limits agency authority, even if the statutory context relates to an international agreement.
- Under NIA § 408, amendments to AD/CVD laws apply to NAFTA-country goods only to the extent the amending statute expressly specifies such application.
- Competitive-injury standing can be established where government payments plausibly improve the competitive position of domestic interests through promotion or related market effects, even if the recipient is not a direct seller-competitor.
- Repeal or intervening events can moot claims and require tailoring injunctive relief to ongoing or redressable distributions.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit concluded that CBP could not lawfully distribute CDSOA offsets funded by duties on NAFTA-country imports absent an express congressional statement in the CDSOA, permitted APA review based on NIA § 408 despite NAFTA’s non-self-executing status, and required narrowing relief where claims became moot.


Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)