Full opinion text
OPINION POGUE, Judge. This case presents two key questions: First, whether domestic law authorizes the Government of Canada and/or its exporters to challenge in this court the administration of the United States’ trade laws, particularly the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-387, § 1003, 114 Stat. 1549, 1623 (2000) codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (the “Byrd Amendment”). The United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “Defendant” or “Commissioner”), relying on'the Byrd Amendment, distributes to domestic producers who are competitors of the Plaintiff Canadian exporters the duties collected as a result of antidumping and countervailing orders on Canadian goods. If Plaintiffs are authorized to challenge the Defendant’s implementation of the Byrd Amendment by bringing this action, the second issue is whether Customs is authorized to distribute funds .collected from duty orders on Canadian (and Mexican) imports of goods where the Byrd Amendment does not specifically so direct. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the Plaintiff Canadian exporters, but not the Government of Canada, are authorized to bring this action, and that Customs has violated U.S. law, specifically a provision of the NAFTA Implementation Act in applying the Byrd Amendment to antidumping and countervailing duties on goods from Canada and Mexico, 19 U.S.C. § 3438. BACKGROUND A. In the early 1990’s, the United States, Canada and Mexico negotiated, and signed, the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”). See North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-159, p. 1 (1993); Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2005); Made in the USA Found, v. United States, 242 F.3d 1300, 1302-03 (11th Cir.2001). NAFTA aims to achieve “the liberalization of trade in goods and services, removal of barriers to investment, [and] the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights[.]” SAA, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-159, p. 3 (1993). As is relevant here, NAFTA allows the United States (and the other NAFTA parties) to amend their antidumping and countervailing duty laws “provided that ... [any] amendment shall apply to goods from another Party only if the amending statute specifies that it applies to goods from that Party or from the Parties to this Agreement.” North American Free Trade Agreement, art.1902(2)(a) (1993) (entered into force Jan. 1, 1994) (reprinted in Jackson, et al, 2002 Documents Supplement to Legal Problems of International Economic Relations at 512 (4th ed.2002)) (emphasis added). NAFTA further requires that, if the United States does amend its antidumping or countervailing duty laws as to goods from Canada or Mexico: (1) it will notify “in writing the Parties to which the amendment applies of the amending statute as far in advance as possible of the date of enactment of such statute,” (2) it will consult with the affected party before adopting the amending statute, and (3) any such amendment may not run counter to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) or the principles of NAFTA. Id. at art.l902(2)(b)-(d). Congress approved NAFTA in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“NAFTA Implementation Act”) which also amended U.S. law to reflect the NAFTA framework. NAFTA Implementation Act, Pub.L. No. 103-182, 107 Stat.2060-2164 (1993), codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3473 (2000). Specifically, in implementing NAFTA art.1902, Section 408 of the NAFTA Implementation Act, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 3438 (“Section 408”), provides that “[a]ny amendment ... [to] title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 [19 U.S.C. §§ 1671 et seq.\ or any successor statute ... shall apply to goods from a NAFTA country only to the extent specified in the amendment.” The NAFTA Implementation Act, including 19 U.S.C. § 3438, became effective January 1, 1994. B. Subsequent to the passage of the NAFTA Implementation Act, in 2000, Congress amended Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 with the passage of the Byrd Amendment, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c. The passage of the Byrd Amendment was intended to strengthen the remedial purposes of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Specifically, prior to the Byrd Amendment, under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, Customs collected antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped and subsidized imports, implementing such orders to attempt to neutralize the distortive and adverse effects of dumping and subsidization; Customs then deposited all revenues collected from these duties into the U.S. Treasury, from which the duties were available to pay for general government expenses. See generally 21A Am Jur 2d, Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 221 (2004) (“In general, all receipts from customs must be promptly paid into the Treasury.”). After the Byrd Amendment’s passage, Customs still collects antidumping and countervailing duties that attempt to neutralize the distortive and adverse effects of dumping and subsidization, but now, following the Byrd Amendment, Customs deposits all duties collected into “special accounts” established within the U.S. Treasury for each antidumping and countervailing duty order. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(e); 19 C.F.R. § 159.64. In addition, each year, Customs distributes all monies contained in those special accounts, plus interest, on a pro rata basis, to “affected domestic producers,” i.e., companies (who continue to produce the subject merchandise under the antidump-ing or countervailing duty order) and worker groups that supported the petition for the antidumping or countervailing duty order. The funds distributed, known as the “continued dumping and subsidy offset,” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a); 19 C.F.R. § 159.61(a) (“Byrd Distributions”), are intended to strengthen trade law remedies, through an allocation based on “qualifying expenditures,” i.e., certain enumerated business expenses such as manufacturing facilities, equipment, input materials, health benefits for employees, and “[wjorking capital or other funds needed to maintain production,” paid by affected domestic producers, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675c(b)(4); 1675c(d)(2)-(3); 19 C.F.R. § 159.61(c). On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 repealing the Byrd Amendment. See, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109— 171, § 7601(b), 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006). As provided by this repeal: “All duties on entries of goods made and filed before October 1, 2007, that would, but for [the repeal] be distributed will continue to be distributed under the Byrd Amendment, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c.” Id. c. The Byrd Amendment does not specify that it applies to goods from Canada or Mexico, see 19 U.S.C. § 1675c, nor did the United States provide advance notice of the Byrd Amendment to Canada or Mexico or engage in consultations with regard thereto. Seeking to challenge the Byrd Amendment, and alleging that the Byrd Amendment violated the Uruguay Round Agreements, Canada and Mexico joined with nine other foreign governments in bringing a claim against the United States before the Dispute Resolution Body of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). In the proceedings, both a panel of the Dispute Resolution Body, Panel Reports, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/R, WTDS234/R (Sept. 16, 2002), and the Appellate Body, Appellate Body Reports, United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/ DS217/AB/R, WTDS234/AB/R (Jan. 16, 2003), ruled against the United States, determining that the Byrd Distributions were inconsistent with the Uruguay Round Agreements. Pursuant to the WTO adjudication, and after consultation and arbitration, the WTO authorized the complaining nations to suspend tariff concessions and other obligations in an amount equal to a portion of the prior Byrd Distributions which the WTO had determined to be improper. Decision by the Arbitrator, United States—Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, ¶ 5.2, WT/DS234/ARB/CAN (Aug. 31, 2004). Specifically, the WTO authorized Canada to suspend tariff concessions in an amount equal to 72% of the value of the United States’ annual Byrd Distributions during fiscal 2004, id., that percentage having been determined to be “the extent to which disbursement under the [Byrd Amendment] affect[ed] exports” from Canada, id. at ¶3.76. Additionally, Canada is authorized to suspend tariff concessions, and other obligations, totaling 72% of the value of distributions made by the United States for all years subsequent to 2004 (as annually calculated by the arbitrator). Id. at ¶ 5.1. Pursuant to this authorization, Canada imposes a 15% surtax on imports of live swine, cigarettes, oysters, and certain speciality fish, from the United States. See International Trade Canada, Trade Negotiations and Agreements: Dispute Settlement (2005), http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/disp/factsheet-en.asp. The WTO has also approved Mexico’s suspension of trade concessions authorizing Mexico to impose tariffs ranging from 9% to 30% on imports of chewing gum and candy, dairy, blends used for products such as baby formula, and various wines from the United States. See Decreto por el que se modifica tempo-ralmente el artículo 1 el Decreto por el que se establece la Tasa Aplicable durante 2003 del Impuesto General de Importación para las mercancías originarias de América del Norte publicado el 31 diciembre de 2002 por lo que respecta para las mercan-cías originarias de EE.UU [Decree temporarily modifying various tariff rates applied to North American goods], Diario Oficial de la Federación [D.O.], 17 de Agosto de 2005 (Mex.) (2005) at 68-69, available at http://goberna-cion.gob.mx/dofi2005/agosto/dof_17-08-2005.pdf. D. Plaintiffs in this case are producers and exporters of goods from Canada (collectively “Canadian Producers”) and the Government of Canada (“Canada”); the Canadian Producers were all subject to countervailing and antidumping duty orders at one point of time since the passage of the Byrd Amendment and are direct competitors with recipients of Byrd Distributions, see, e.g., Allan Decl., Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 4; Vincent Decl., PL’s Ex. 2 at 4; Milton Decl., PL’s Ex. 3 at 3; LaFlamme Decl., PL’s Ex. 4 at 5; Beudry Decl., PL’s Ex. at 10; Thompson Decl., PL’s Ex. at 3. The Government of Mexico has also participated in these proceedings as an ami-cus curiae. Plaintiffs the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance, the Ontario Forest Industry Association, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association, and the Free Trade Lumber Council (“Lumber Plaintiffs”) all represent Canadian Producers and exporters of softwood lumber whose imports into the United States are currently subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 Fed.Reg. 36,-068 (Dep’t Commerce May 22, 2002) (notice of amended final determination of sales at less than fair value and antidump-ing duty order), Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 Fed.Reg. 36,-070 (Dep’t Commerce May 22, 2002) (notice of amended final affirmative countervailing duty determination and notice of countervailing duty order). Based on these orders and pursuant to the Byrd Amendment, the Commissioner distributed $3,278,700.42 to 106 affected domestic producers in 2005, $5,378,612.97 to 126 affected domestic producers in 2004, and $73,422.34 to at least 102 affected domestic producers in 2003. Revised Jt. Stip. Un-disp. Facts at 6, Ex. 1 to PL’s Status Report Regarding a Revised Stmt. Un-disp. Mat. Facts (Jan. 20, 2006) (“PL’s Stip. Facts”); Jt. Stip. Undisp. Mat. Facts at para. 8-9 (Nov. 17, 2005) (“Def.Int.’s Stip. Facts”). In addition, in accordance with these orders, Customs is currently holding cash deposits of $4,189,827,439.59 (as of October 1, 2005) from entries of imports awaiting liquidation. PL’s Stip. Facts at 10. Plaintiff Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (“Norsk”) is a producer and exporter of pure and alloy magnesium ingots. Norsk’s imports into the United States are currently subject to countervailing duties pursuant to Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From Canada, 57 Fed.Reg. 39,392 (Dept. Commerce August 31, 1992) (countervailing duty order). The Commissioner has distributed $25,486.40 in 2005, $63,405.69 in 2004, and $7,787.58 in 2003 to U.S. Magnesium (or its predecessor), Norsk’s domestic competitor. PL’s Stip. Facts at 6-7; Def.-Int.’s Stip Facts at para. 10. Under this order, Customs holds cash deposits (as of October 1, 2005) of $6,328,090.94. PL’s Stip. Facts at 10. Plaintiff the Canadian Wheat Board purchases hard red spring wheat from Canadian farmers and sells that wheat in Canada and export markets including the United States. The Canadian Wheat Board was subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders, Certain Durum and Hard Red Spring Wheat From Canada, 68 Fed.Reg. 52,747 (Dept. Commerce Sept. 5, 2003) (notice of final affirmative countervailing duty determinations); Certain Durum and Hard Red Spring Wheat From Canada, 68 Fed.Reg. 52,741 (Dept. Commerce Sept. 5, 2003) (notice of final determinations of anti-dumping duty investigations), until Commerce rescinded those orders effective as of January 2, 2006, Antidumping Duty Investigation and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada: Notice of Panel Decision, Revocation of Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duty Orders and Termination of Suspension of Liquidation, 71 Fed.Reg. 8,275 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 16, 2005). On June 1, 2005, Customs published a notice of intent to make distributions of monies collected from the Canadian Wheat Board identifying a single eligible affected domestic producer: Defendanb-Intervenor the North Dakota Wheat Commission. See Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 70 FecLReg. 31,566, 32,132 (Dep’t Customs June 1, 2005) (notice of intent to distribute offset for Fiscal Year 2005). Pursuant to the two orders on hard red spring wheat from Canada, the Commissioner distributed $127,643.68 to the North Dakota Wheat Commission (“NDWC”) in November 2005, Def.’s Resp. Def. Int.’s Proposed Stmt. Facts at para. 59 (Jan. 30, 2006), and currently holds cash deposits of $290,021.87 from unliquidated entries (as of October 1, 2005), PL’s Stip. Facts at 10. E. Plaintiffs filed their summonses and complaints in this action on April 29, 2005, claiming jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). On July 12, 2005, the Defendant moved to dismiss each action pursuant to USCIT Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(5), asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted because Plaintiffs’ complaints were not authorized by domestic law. In a telephone conference held on August 2, 2005, Plaintiffs informed the court that they would oppose the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with affidavits and would be filing motions for summary judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 56 (more appropriately, motions for judgment on the agency record under Rule 56.1). Following the Supreme Court’s suggestion in Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 7, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (“We strongly suggest that in future eases parties litigating in this Court under circumstances similar to those here take pains to supplement the record in any manner necessary to enable us to address with as much precision as possible any question of standing that may be raised.”); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167-68, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (outlining the evidentiary requirements of standing), the court, in light of the Plaintiffs’ proposed filings, converted all pending motions into cross motions for summary judgmeni/mo-tions for judgment on the agency record, and pursuant to Rule 56(d), on March 27 and March 28, 2006, held a hearing to resolve any disputed facts related to jurisdiction. The court also granted a motion by Plaintiffs to consolidate all of Plaintiffs’ cases under Docket Number 05-324. I. Overview Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors allege numerous jurisdictional defects in the Plaintiffs’ Complaints. • Because jurisdictional bars to entertaining Plaintiffs’ suits are a threshold inquiry, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577-78, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89-102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), the court must find that jurisdiction exists before it may reach the merits. Nevertheless, because many of the jurisdictional arguments depend on at least a superficial understanding of the statutory scheme at issue, the court will here briefly discuss the text, purpose, and effect of Section 408 while leaving discussion of the bona fide disagreements over its interpretation to Section V below. Plaintiffs, including Canada, raise their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, to enforce Section 408 of the NAFTA Implementation Act as applied to Customs’ administration of the Byrd Amendment. Plaintiffs ask the court to: (1) find unlawful Defendant’s disbursements of monies collected on goods from Canada; (2) permanently enjoin future distributions; and (3) instruct Defendants to reclaim distributions made on March 15, 2004 and December 17, 2004. See, e.g., Gov’t Canada Compl. 9, Can. Lum. Compl. 11-12. It follows that, while Plaintiffs’ causes of action are stated under the APA, the thrust of Plaintiffs’ claims rest on Section 408. Section 408 provides that: Any amendment enacted after the Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States that is made to— (1) section 303 or title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 [19 U.S.C. §§ 1671 et seq.\ or any successor statute, or (2) any other statute which— (A) provides for judicial review of final determinations under such section, title, or successor statute, or (B) indicates the standard of review to be applied, shall apply to goods from a NAFTA country only to the extent specified in the amendment. By requiring that amendments apply to goods from Canada and Mexico “only to the extent specified in the amendment,” Congress, through Section 408, imposed a “magic words” rule of interpretation on amendments to U.S. trade laws, i.e., that any amendment to title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 must contain certain “magic words” for Congress to indicate that it intends to alter antidumping and countervailing duty laws with respect to NAFTA parties. SAA, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-159, p. 203 (1993) (“Section 408 of the bill implements the requirement of Article 1902 that amendments to the AD and CVD laws shall apply to a NAFTA country only if the amendment so states explicitly.”). In so doing, Section 408 insulates NAFTA parties, including their exporters, from some changes to the antidumping and countervailing duty laws unless Congress has explicitly stated otherwise. Such an exercise of self-restraint was intended to ensure that future Congresses, agencies, and courts did not inadvertently abrogate the rights NAFTA parties negotiated, or, alternatively, to require future Congresses to give due consideration to the United States’ NAFTA obligations before they amend the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. See id.; cf. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119, 125 S.Ct. 2169, 2182, 162 L.Ed.2d 97 (2005) (“These clear statement rules ensure Congress does not, by broad or general language, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or without due deliberation.”); EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (applying a clear statement rule “to protect against unintended clashes between [U.S.] laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord” which Congress presumably seeks to avoid); Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 582, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953) (applying the Charming Betsy canon, a clear statement canon, because, “in dealing with international commerce we cannot be unmindful of the necessity for mutual forbearance if retaliations are to be avoided[.]”). Consequently, Plaintiffs claim, when the Byrd Amendment is read in conjunction with Section 408, the Byrd Amendment states that Customs shall distribute monies collected on duty orders except for duty orders on goods from Canada or Mexico. With this overview in mind, the court will first consider the Defendant and DefendanWIntervenors’ jurisdictional objections. Taken together, the Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors’ assert that (1) the Plaintiffs lack the legal capacity to bring their complaints, i.e., they lack standing (both under Article III and because of prudential limitations on standing); and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the political question doctrine. Relat-edly, Defendant and Defendant-Interve-nors contend that Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by Section 102(c) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 3312(c). Because the court finds that it does have jurisdiction with respect to the Canadian Producers, and that they have a cause of action under U.S. law, it will then consider the merits. II. STANDING Article III of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to [certain] Cases ... [and] Controversies.... ” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; cf. 28 U.S.C. § 251 (establishing the Court of International Trade as an Article III court). In accordance with this language, courts have required that every pending matter before an Article III Court be a “case” or “controversy.” See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). One of the cornerstones of this inquiry is whether the complaining parties have standing to raise their claims. “In ... pedestrian terms, [standing] is an answer to the very first question that is sometimes rudely asked when one person complains of another’s actions: ‘What’s it to you?’ ” Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 881, 882 (1983). Specifically as this question relates to challenges to administrative decision making, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have been, or likely will be, injured by Defendant’s conduct, in a manner redressable by the court, and that the prudential considerations have been met. Nat’l Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 488, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) (“NCUA”); Dir. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U.S. 122, 126-27, 115 S.Ct. 1278, 131 L.Ed.2d 160 (1995); Ass’n of Data Processing Service Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152-53, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) (“Data Processing”). Each prong will be addressed in turn. A. Article III Standing: Article III standing requires plaintiffs to demonstrate: (1) that they have suffered some injury-in-fact; (2) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and this injury-in-fact; and (3) that this injury is redressable by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (“Defenders of Wildlife”) (citations omitted). Although the prongs of the test are not always factually separable, each prong must be satisfied. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 753 n. 19, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); Wyo. Sawmills Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 383 F.3d 1241, 1247-48 (10th Cir.2004), cert. denied — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 330, 163 L.Ed.2d 43 (2005); The Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir.2002). Because the Canadian Producers’ standing claim turns on a different analysis than that of the Government of Canada, the court will consider each claim separately. i. Canadian Producers’Standing a. The Injury-in-fact Requirement Article III first requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury-in-fact “which is (a) concrete and particularized, [and] (b) ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990)). The injury-in-fact requirement aims not to shield defendants from litigation, but to ensure that the plaintiffs have a stake in the fight and will therefore diligently prosecute the case, United Food & Commer. Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 556, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996) (the standing requirement assures “adversarial vigor”); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972), while, at the same time, ensuring that the claim is not abstract or conjectural so that resolution by the judiciary is both manageable.and proper, Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 20, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998); Allen, 468 U.S. at 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315; Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Accordingly, while injury-in-fact must be found in every case regardless of the statutory provision at issue, Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 577-78, 112 S.Ct. 2130; Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 39, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976), it is nonetheless a “very generous” test, requiring only that claimants “allege[] some specific identifiable trifle of injury....” Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F.2d 1145, 1151 (3rd Cir.1982) (citing United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 689 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973) (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ interests must be “significantly” affected, noting that only an “identifiable trifle” is sufficient)). Applying these principles, courts “routinely recognize probable economic injury resulting from [governmental actions] that alter competitive conditions [are] sufficient to satisfy the [Article III ‘injury-in-fact’ requirement].” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 433, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998) (quoting III Kenneth Kulp Davis & Richard J. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise 13-14 (3d ed.1994)). Accordingly, courts have held that parties may “ ‘suffer constitutional injury in fact when agencies ... allow increased competition’ against them.” U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 295 F.3d 1326, 1331 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting La. Energy & Power Auth. v. FERC, 141 F.3d 364, 367 (D.C.Cir.1998)). In this case, there can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs are direct competitors with the recipients of Byrd Amendment distributions. Cf. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 288 F.3d 910, 916 (6th Cir.2002) (denying standing because plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that a casino forty miles away would detract from its business); DEK Energy Co. v. FERC, 248 F.3d 1192, 1196 (D.C.Cir.2001) (denying standing because of only a “vague probability” that competitor’s product would “actually reach that market and a still lower probability that its arrival will cause [plaintiff] to lose business or drop its prices.”); Area Transp., Inc. v. Ettinger, 219 F.3d 671, 673 (7th Cir.2000) (where competitor was barred from the market, plaintiff lacked standing to seek disgorgement of subsidy). If it were not the case that the Canadian Producers and the domestic industries are direct competitors, it would be unlikely that the domestic producers would be entitled to obtain the protection of the underlying antidumping and countervailing duty orders that are the source of the Byrd Distributions. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(l) & 1673d(b)(l) (requiring International Trade Commission to find material injury); 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a) (same); 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(A) (defining interested parties to proceedings to include producers of the subject merchandise). Nor can it be seriously questioned that a direct payment to, i.e., conferring of a subsidy on, a direct competitor may be sufficient to cause increased competition and therefore “a concrete and particularized injury” that is “actual or imminent.” See, e.g., W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 195 n. 10 & 196 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2205, 129 L.Ed.2d 157 (1994); Bacchus Imps., Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 267, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200 (1984); United States Telecom Ass’n, 295 F.3d at 1326; Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. FERC, 182 F.3d 30, 43 (D.C.Cir.1999); Adams v. Watson, 10 F.3d 915, 920-21 (1st Cir.1993); Westport Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Adams, 571 F.2d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir.1978); Rental Hous. Ass’n of Greater Lynn, Inc. v. Hills, 548 F.2d 388, 389-90 (1st Cir.1977); Ray Baillie Trash Hauling, Inc. v. Kleppe, 477 F.2d 696, 701 (5th Cir.1973). Cf. Area Transp., Inc. v. Ettinger, 219 F.3d at 673. Indeed, it must be the ease that subsidies to competitors confer standing under our trade laws — if parties did not suffer an injury-in-fact from an agency’s failure to countermand such a subsidy, then no member of the domestic industry would have standing to challenge a negative determination by the Department of Commerce or International Trade Commission in an antidumping and countervailing duty ease, see Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 1362, 1374, 947 F.Supp. 525, 536 (1996) (“As a direct competitor of Shieldal-loy, Galt would suffer injury in fact if Commerce were to calculate Shieldalloy’s dumping margin based on distorted or impermissible data.”), or (perhaps), even intervene in such cases before this Court, Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68-69, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986) (leaving open whether intervenors must have standing). Nevertheless, both Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors argue that the Canadian Producers do not have standing to maintain their challenge because: (a) the Complaints did not sufficiently plead standing; (b) economic injury is an insuffi-dent basis to confer standing; and (c) Plaintiffs have suffered no injury-in-fact as a matter of fact. Each objection will be addressed in turn. 1) Sufficiency of the Complaints In their Complaints, the Canadian Producers allege that they are exporters in “direct competition” with recipients of Byrd Distributions, and that they “have suffered, and will continue to suffer harm to their economic and competitive interests as a result of the distribution of funds pursuant to [the Byrd Amendment].” Can. Lum. Compl. 4. See also Norsk Compl. 4 (same); Ontario Forest Indus. Compl. 3; CWB Compl. 3 (alleging that it “will suffer harm to its economic interests”). The Defendant, citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in McKinney v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 799 F.2d 1544, 1555 (Fed.Cir.1986), avers that the Canadian Producers alleged no “specific injury whatsoever” in their complaints. Def.’s Mem. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss at 16 (“Def.’s Mem.”). See also Def.’s Combined Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss & Opp. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 25-26 (“Def.’s Reply”). Although Defendant’s argument may be supported by language in McKinney, in the years since that decision, the Supreme Court has clarified pleading requirements for standing. See, e.g., Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167-68, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997); Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (“Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n”). According to the Supreme Court’s current articulation of the pleading requirements, “each element of Article III standing ‘must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.’ ” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 167-68, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (quoting Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130). Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint need only “set forth ... a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,” USCIT R. 8, “[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we ‘presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.’ ” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. at 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177). Consequently, a district court may only dismiss a complaint if it can presume no “specific facts under which the petitioners will be injured.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 168, 117 S.Ct. 1154; see also Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 631 (2d Cir.2003); Alliant Energy Corp. v. Bie, 277 F.3d 916, 920 (7th Cir.2002) (Easterbrook, J.) (“supplying details is not the function of a complaint. It is easy to imagine facts consistent with this complaint and affidavits that will show plaintiffs’ standing, and no more is required.” (emphasis in original)); S. Austin Coal. Cmty. Council v. SBC Commc’ns., Inc., 274 F.3d 1168, 1171 (7th Cir.2001) (“Complaints need not be elaborate, and in this respect injury (and thus standing) is no different from any other matter that may be alleged generally.”); S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. Supreme Court of La., 252 F.3d 781, 788 (5th Cir.2001) (noting the “expansive and deferential way in which [courts] construe pleadings” with respect to injury). Applying the rule stated in Defenders of Wildlife, in this case, the court cannot fail to presume the specific facts necessary to satisfy standing here because such consequences are implicit in the statutory scheme itself. Here, it is apparent that the Plaintiffs’ sales may be diverted to a competitor that is better able to compete as a result of the Byrd Amendment distributions. See, e.g., W. Lynn Creamery, Inc., 512 U.S. at 195 n. 10 & 196 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2205; Data Processing, 397 U.S. at 152, 90 S.Ct. 827 (proving injury by reference to customers who had switched to competitors); Inv. Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 620, 91 S.Ct. 1091, 28 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971); FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 476-77, 60 S.Ct. 693, 84 L.Ed. 869 (1940) (granting license to competitor sufficient to satisfy injury-in-fact); Leaf Tobacco Exp. Ass’n v. Block, 749 F.2d 1106, 1112 (4th Cir.1984); Ray Baillie, 477 F.2d at 701 (Government contract scheme “enabled [plaintiffs competitor] to receive a premium price above that which would have prevailed under competitive bidding and that [its competitor has] since used this premium to submit low bids for private commercial contracts, thus causing the plaintiffs to lose some of their customers to [its competitor].”). See also C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 430, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994) (Souter, J. dissenting) (“a subsidized competitor can effectively squelch competition by underbidding it.”); United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 71, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936) (“If the cotton grower elects not to accept the [subsidy], he will receive less for his crops; those who receive payments will be able to undersell him.”). Relatedly, Plaintiffs’ comparative advantage may be undermined thereby reducing the price they may charge (and therefore reducing their profit margins). See, e.g., Sugar Cane Growers Coop, of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89, 94 (D.C.Cir.2002); Minn. Milk Producers Ass’n v. Madigan, 956 F.2d 816, 817-19 (8th Cir.1992) (agency action which causes supply to increase created injury); Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick, 847 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1988) (injury caused by a tax which upset comparative advantage); Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass’n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 822 F.2d 1105, 1108-09 (D.C.Cir.1987) (“Under undisputed economic principles, such an increase in supply is likely to depress the prices that petitioner’s members can secure.”); Tax Analysts & Advocates v. Blumenthal, 566 F.2d 130, 137-38 (D.C.Cir.1977) (same); cf. Bryant, 447 U.S. at 367, 100 S.Ct. 2232 (government program that made possible the sale of excess lands at below market price sufficient to confer standing on potential purchasers interested in maintaining program). The increase (or sustaining) of competition may cause Plaintiffs’ costs to grow to counter this competition, again reducing their profit margin. See, e.g., Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. DOI, 538 U.S. 803, 819, 123 S.Ct. 2026, 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003) (Breyer, J. dissenting); DIRECTV, Inc. v. FCC, 110 F.3d 816, 830 (D.C.Cir.1997) (injury caused by divesture requirement in bidding process); cf. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 432, 118 S.Ct. 2091 (denial of benefit during bargaining process sufficient to confer standing). The competitiveness of the market may make Plaintiffs’ business ventures less attractive to potential investors, reducing the Plaintiffs’ ability to raise capital or sell their business interests. See, e.g., Alliant Energy Corp., 277 F.3d at 920 (“Higher costs of capital injure the firm, making [plaintiffs] the right plaintiffs.”); Mount Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 884 F.2d 1462, 1465 (D.C.Cir.1987) (approving this theory); Tax Analysts, 566 F.2d at 136-37; cf. McKinney, 799 F.2d at 1555. Because economic logic suggests that Plaintiffs have been injured, and because Defendant-Intervenors are the only parties who would have any evidence as to how the distributions have been, and will be, used and, therefore, whether they have enhanced affected domestic producers’ abilities to compete, requiring anything further in the way of allegations at the pleading stage would convert pleading requirements into a formidable barrier — a result at odds with the liberal notice pleading requirements underlying USCIT R. 8. See, e.g., United Transp. Union, 891 F.2d at 912 n. 7 (“Allegations founded on economic principles such as ... in competitor standing cases, while perhaps not as reliable as allegations based on the laws of physics, are at least more akin to demonstrable facts than are predictions based only on speculation.”); Alliance for Clean Coal v. Miller, 44 F.3d 591, 593-94 (7th Cir.1995); cf. Sugar Cane Growers, 289 F.3d at 94 (it was the Government’s burden if it wanted to contest Plaintiffs economic theory of injury to request a hearing); Alliant Energy Corp., 277 F.3d at 916 (plaintiff does not have to negate defenses in its complaint); Adams, 10 F.3d at 925 (defendants can refute economic theory at summary judgment or an eviden-tiary hearing). This principle is especially true here given that subsidies are known for their lack of transparency. See Alan O. Sykes, Regulatory Protectionism and the Law of International Trade, 66 U. Chi. L.Rev. 1, 30-31 (1999); cf. Testimony of Dr. David John Teece, Trial Transcript of March 28, 2006 Hearing at 282. Accordingly, following clear Supreme Court precedent, Defendant’s argument to dismiss on this basis must be rejected. 2) Whether competitive injuries are cognizable Defendant and Defendant-Inter-venors contend that economic injuries are not cognizable within the meaning of the injury-in-fact test. See, e.g., Def.’s Reply at 22-24; Def.’s Mem. at 14,17; Def.-Int.’s Reply Mot. Supp. Def.-Int.’s Mot. Summ. J. & Resp. Opp. PL’s Cross-Mot. Summ. J. at 30-32 (“Def.-Int.’s Reply”). Specifically, relying on the Supreme Court’s statement in Hardin v. Ky. Utils. Co., 390 U.S. 1, 5-6, 88 S.Ct. 651, 19 L.Ed.2d 787 (1968) that “[t]his Court has, it is true, repeatedly held that the economic injury which results from lawful competition cannot, in and of itself, confer standing on the injured business to question the legality of any aspect of its competitor’s operations,” and the proposition that there is no constitutional right to import, see, e.g., Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318, 53 S.Ct. 350, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1933); Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill. v. United States, 289 U.S. 48, 58, 53 S.Ct. 509, 77 L.Ed. 1025 (1933), Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors argue that Plaintiffs have suffered no injury. The court disagrees. First, Defendant and Defendant-Inter-venors’ reliance on this authority is unfounded. Although they correctly quote one line of Hardin, the very next lines of that decision read: But competitive injury provided no basis for standing in the above cases simply because the statutory and constitutional requirements that the plaintiff sought to enforce were in no way concerned with protecting against competitive injury. In contrast, it has been the rule, at least since the CMco-go Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258, 44 S.Ct. 317, 68 L.Ed. 667 (1924), that when the particular statutory provision invoked does reflect a legislative purpose to protect a competitive interest, the injured competitor has standing to require compliance with that provision. Hardin, 390 U.S. at 6, 88 S.Ct. 651 (emphasis added). The Hardin Court then went on to find standing because of competitive injuries. Id. Neither Defendant, nor Defendant-Intervenors, mention this second and third sentence, or the Court’s holding. DefendanNIntervenors attempt to buttress their argument by quoting Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 408 F.2d 1147, 1149 (1st Cir.1969) (“because of the policy encouraging free and open competition — a policy that favors competition in the market place, not in the courts.”), claiming that this decision was “reversed on other grounds” by Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 315, 90 S.Ct. 1109, 25 L.Ed.2d 333 (1970). Def.-Int.’s Reply at' 30. The First Circuit’s decision in Arnold Tours, however, was not “reversed on other grounds,” it was vacated, Arnold Tours, 397 U.S. at 315, 90 S.Ct. 1109, and therefore may not be cited. Moreover, as the Supreme Court recounted the following year when it again took up the case: “Following our decisions last Term ... we vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration ... and the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its previous decision.” Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 400 U.S. 45, 46, 91 S.Ct. 158, 27 L.Ed.2d 179 (1970). In this latter decision, the Court reversed the First Circuit and found standing. Id. In other words, the case upon which the De-fendanb-Intervenors rely was not “reversed on other grounds” it was vacated and then, when the Supreme Court granted certiorari again, reversed on those grounds. See, e.g., Def.-Int.’s Reply at 32 n. 25 (properly noting this subsequent history in light of the District Court’s decision in Arnold Tours). From this authority, and others, the First Circuit agreed eight years later that there exists “no authority for the proposition that competitive harm is an insufficient allegation of injury in fact. Quite the contrary, the cases finding allegations of competitive injury sufficient are legion.” Rental Housing Ass’n v. Hills, 548 F.2d 388, 389 (1st Cir.1977). Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ claims do not rest on a constitutional right to import but on a statutory right not to have the anti-dumping and countervailing duties laws amended to disadvantage their access to U.S. markets (without Congress explicitly including them within the amendment); cf. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 430, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (canvassing extensive authority. on this distinction in finding that statutes providing substantial evidence review create due process interests); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (“The actual or threatened injury required by Art. Ill may exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing ....’”) (quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, n. 3, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973)), rendering any argument that Plaintiffs’ have no constitutional right of no relevance. This does not mean that when Congress does create a legal right, plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate standing. To the contrary, the “ ‘[statutory] broadening [of] the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must himself have suffered an injury.’ ” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 578, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (quoting Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 738, 92 S.Ct. 1361). As such, although injuries to interests that are not constitutionally protected are sufficient, “injury amounting only to the alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law [is] not judicially cognizable.” Id. at 575, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Perhaps even more importantly, Defendant’s argument rests on a standing analysis that has long been rejected by the Supreme Court. In Data Processing, the Supreme Court rejected the “legal interest” analysis which required claimants to demonstrate an injury to their legally protected rights. See, e.g., Akins, 524 U.S. at 19, 118 S.Ct. 1777; Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 164, 90 S.Ct. 882, 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970); Panhandle Producers, 822 F.2d at 1108-09 (noting that although counterintui-tive, “[cjompetitors have a seemingly unbroken record of success in securing standing to challenge decisions involving agency licensing.”). In repudiating that earlier test, the Court noted that the “ ‘legal interest’ test [went] to the merits [whereas the] question of standing is different,” Data Processing, 397 U.S. at 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, and that the legal interest test conflicted with the “broadly remedial purpose” of the APA, id. at 156, 90 S.Ct. 827. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the “legal interest” analysis was absolute and unqualified. See Jonathan R. Siegel, Zone of Interests, 92 Geo. L.J. 317, 320 (2004) (“Data Processing rejected the ‘legal right’ test and created the now-familiar rule that Article III of the Constitution permits a plaintiff to bring suit in federal court provided the plaintiff is ‘injured in fact,’ without regard to whether the plaintiff has a legal right to be free from injury.”); Sanford A. Church, A Defense of the “Zone of Interests” Standing Test, 1983 Duke L.J. 447, 449-52 (1983) (“Before 1968, courts used a ‘legal interest’ test to decide the standing of a party challenging agency action ... The [Data Processing Court] replaced the legal interest test with the zone of interests test.”); David P. Currie, Misunderstanding Standing, 1981 Sup.Ct. Rev. 41, 42 (“The Data Processing case in 1969, rejected the ‘legal right’ test, [and] declared in apparently general” terms that the zone of interest analysis would apply to future cases); Kenneth Culp Davis, The Liberalized Law of Standing, 37 U. Chi. L.Rev. 450, 453 (1970) (“A huge portion of the former foundation of the law of standing was thus knocked out. The old test of ‘a recognized legal interest’ was specifically rejected.”). Any remnants of this analysis are now relevant only to prudential considerations in the context of the zone of interest test discussed below. Air Courier Conference, 498 U.S. at 524, 111 S.Ct. 913. Defendant-Intervenors address the fact that Data Processing and its progeny rejected the legal interest analysis asserting that these cases are not controlling because they dealt only with new competitors, whereas plaintiffs’ claim alleges unlawful competition from existing competitors. Def.-Int.’s Reply at 31. This distinction, however, is unpersuasive. Data Processing rejected the legal interest analysis in definitive terms, not only relating to new competitors. Moreover, the distinction Defendanb-Intervenors attempt to draw fails to recognize that the Plaintiffs are alleging new competitive threats as a result of Byrd Amendment distributions. Cf. Alliance for Clean Coal, 44 F.3d at 593-94; Adams, 10 F.3d at 919; Nat’l Coal Ass’n v. Hodel, 825 F.2d 523, 526 (D.C.Cir.1987). This attempted distinction is also belied by the fact that parties regularly bring suit against existing competitors in antitrust, copyright, and trade cases. Accordingly, this distinction is of no moment. S) Lack of injury-in-fact Last, Defendant and Defendant Intervenors assert that the Byrd Amendment has not so altered the competitive conditions for the Canadian Producers as to cause an injury-in-fact. As noted above, the court held a two day hearing to resolve this factual dispute. At that hearing, the court took testimony from Mr. Neal Fisher, Administrator for the North Dakota Wheat Commission, Mr. Mike Legge, President of U.S. Magnesium, Professor Janusz Alexander Ordover, Professor of Economics at New York University and Professor David John Teece, Professor of Business Administration at the Walter A. Haas School of Business at the University of California Berkeley. At the outset on this issue, the Canadian Producers contend that the Byrd Distributions enhance the ability of affected domestic producers to compete; this alteration of the competitive environment, the Canadian Producers claim, will invariably lead to competitive injuries. More specifically, the Canadian Producers maintain, supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Ordover, that the Byrd Amendment leads to two types of harm: (1) “Ex Ante” Harms: The Canadian Producers claim that the Byrd Amendment encourages affected domestic producers to invest in qualifying expenditures that they would not have made but for the Byrd Amendment. Under this theory, because each prospective recipient’s share of the money available for distribution is determined by its claimed qualifying expenditures, affected domestic producers have an incentive to expend resources on qualifying expenditures to increase their share of the funds available. To use a simplified example, consider the investment choice of a firm purchasing new equipment. If a firm considers purchasing equipment that will, absent the Byrd Amendment, return ninety-nine cents for every dollar invested, the firm will not invest in the new equipment as its projected investment yields a negative return. However, with the Byrd Amendment, if the expected Byrd Distribution for this qualifying expenditure is more than one cent per dollar' invested, the expected value of purchasing that equipment becomes positive, leading the firm to buy the new equipment. The purchase of new equipment may lead to higher production, or lower marginal costs, which will adversely affect the firm’s market competitors. Accordingly, under this claim, even without Customs actually distributing money, the mere prospect of Byrd Distributions will lead to competitive investments. (2) “Ex Post” Harms: This claim is that once the Byrd Distributions are made, domestic industries can use those funds to enhance their productivity or weather turbulent economic markets. Because the Byrd Distributions come with no strings attached, firms will make efficient business choices. Nevertheless, the Byrd Distributions allow firms access to “free money.” This not only may lower their costs of capital, but also, lead them to make more investments than those that their creditors otherwise would have sponsored. For example, if there is a downturn in the market for a given product (say because of an oversupply of a commodity within a market), affected domestic producers may turn to cash reserves cumulated through Byrd Distributions to out-wait their competitors — a choice their creditors may not have approved. Both theories are supported by either government studies or economic principles adopted by courts. See infra at note 44. Defendant introduced expert testimony attempting to rebut these hypotheses. In response to the “ex ante” analysis, Defendant’s expert, Dr. Teece, argued that there is a large measure of uncertainty with regard to future Byrd Distributions. Specifically, because the money Customs holds on unliquidated entries may never be transferred from the “clearing accounts,” ie., the escrow-like accounts Customs creates for cash deposits, to “special accounts,” ie., the accounts from which distributions are then made (from the duties collected on liquidated entries), Dr. Teece opined that firms are not presently considering future allocations in their investment calculus; moreover, Dr. Teece argued, in terms of the Lumber Plaintiffs in particular because there are so many affected domestic producers vying for Byrd Distributions, each company’s share will be very small thereby dissipating any incentive to invest in qualifying expenditures. Dr. Teece also argued that the Canadian Producers’ “ex post” analysis fails. Contrasting production subsidies, ie., subsidies for which the terms or conditions of receipt are directly or indirectly tied to productive enterprises, with pure subsidies, ie., lump sum cash grants that may be dedicated to any purpose (“manna from heaven”), Dr. Teece opined that the Byrd Distributions are pure subsidies and can be used for any purpose. As such, firms may use this money to diversify their investments into other markets, increase dividends, shut down their operations, or maintain larger cash reserves for use at some distant date in the future. In essence, Dr. Teece maintained, there are too many alternative ways affected domestic producers may spend their distributions to warrant any conclusion that those expenditures will have any adverse affect on the Canadian Producers. As stated above, in weighing these competing claims, the court must consider whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that their claimed injuries are probable and imminent as opposed to speculative or conjectural. See, e.g., Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 430, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998); Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130; cf. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (noting that there was nothing “improbable” about plaintiffs’ alleged harm). Moreover, the injury need not be great, an identifiable trifle is sufficient, ie., there is no defense that a harm is de minimus. See United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 689 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973); see also Akins, 524 U.S. at 21, 118 S.Ct. 1777 (finding that deprivation of information constitutes an injury because “[tjhere is no reason to doubt their claim that the information would help them”); accord Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. at 186, 120 S.Ct. 693. Moreover, although a party invoking the court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving that jurisdiction is proper, see, e.g., Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, that party does not have to “negate ... speculative and hypothetical possibilities ... in order to demonstrate the likely effectiveness of judicial relief,” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 78, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978). The court further notes its agreement with Dr. Teece’s assessment that because money is “completely fungible,” tracing where Byrd distributions are used is a difficult, if not impossible, assignment. Testimony of Dr. Teece, Trial Transcript of March 28, 2006 Hearing at 282. Therefore, the court must consider whether, on the record here, it is likely that any of the past distributions have been, and/or likely will be, used to Plaintiff Producers’ detriment. Bearing these observations in mind, the court is persuaded by the Canadian Producers’ arguments that there will likely be some injury as a result of the distributions. As this inquiry relates to Lumber Plaintiffs, Dr. Teece did not dispute that affected domestic producers may use a portion of their distributions to enhance their competitive positions. His testimony was simply that the uncertainty was too great to warrant any definitive conclusion that affected domestic producers would use any of their distributions to enhance their competitive positions. However, the fact remains that the very United States Government Accountability Office study that figured into his analysis noted that at least one firm (if not more) has used its distributions on expenditures that would likely enhance its competitive position. United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters: International Trade: Issues and Effects of Implementing the Continued, Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, 104 (2005) (“GAO Report”) (noting from survey results that lumber firms used distributions to “pay debt, past qualifying expenditures, general operating expenditures, general corporate expenses, and capital investment." (emphasis added)). Similarly, although twelve out of the thirteen recipient firms had noticed “little or no effects” of the Byrd Distributions, one firm did note “positive effects.” Id. at 102. Nor is the court convinced that future distributions will not be used in a similar fashion. Indeed, according to one group representing the domestic lumber industry, the Byrd Amendment “provides a direct cash influx for those who have been and continue to be most harmed by unfair trade, allowing such entities crucial time and capital to adapt to the unfair trade practices and maintain employment levels.” Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, The American Lumber Industry: Enforcement of the Trade Laws Essential to the Industry, Pl.’s Ex. 32 at 37 (2005). Such investments may occur even in periods of time where there is an “oversupply” of the commodity. Testimony of Dr. David John Teece, Trial Transcript of March 28, 2006 Hearing at 292. As such, it is implausible for the government to maintain that none of the money has been, or will be, used to alter the competitive landscape. This is certainly more than the identifiable trifle necessary to sustain standing for the Lumber Plaintiffs. More problematic are the claims of the Canadian Wheat Board and Norsk. Neither industry is directly discussed in the GAO Report. In the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, the North Dakota Wheat Commission (“NDCW”) is the single recipient of monies. The NDCW does not produce any hard red spring wheat (“HRS wheat”) itself; rather the NDWC (among its other duties) promotes the sale of HRS wheat on behalf of farmers in North Dakota and sponsors research on HRS wheat. Testimony of Mr. Neal Fisher, Trial Transcript of March 27, 2006 Hearing at 14-17. Also problematic for the analysis is that the NDWC received Byrd Distributions, for the first time, in December 2005; moreover, because of this litigation, the NDWC has not earmarked the money from the distribution for any specific future use. Therefore, the NDWC does not have a track record on how it spends Byrd money nor does it have a plan on how it will spend that money, Testimony of Mr. Neal Fisher, Trial Transcript of March 27, 2006 Hearing at 28, 33. As a result, predicting the affect of this money becomes highly problematic given that some of the ways the NDWC may spend its distributions, e.g., on research, may actually aid the Canadian Producers (so long as this expenditure has not freed up other money it would have spent on research but for the Byrd Distributions). Similarly, U.S. Magnesium, the single beneficiary of Byrd Distributions collected from duties on Norsk’s goods, has placed its previous distributions in a revolving account with its creditor. Also weighing into the consideration is that U.S. Magnesium has not, over the past two years, received substantial Byrd Distributions as a result of pending litigation over the underlying determination. Nevertheless, the court is convinced that the Canadian Wheat Board and Norsk have standing. Although Byrd Distributions may only have trickled in over the past few years, cumulatively (and with future distributions) these monies are not necessarily insignificant. Second, the U.S. General Accountability Office’s survey demonstrates that Byrd recipients have used their distributions to enhance their competitive positions. GAO Report, supra, at 66, 70, 72, 77, 84,102-04. Although the NDWC and U.S. Magnesium may not follow suit, all that plaintiffs must show is that it is probable. Third, in the case of U.S. Magnesium, it is conceded that the Byrd Distributions do lower its “weighted average cost of capital.” Testimony of Dr. Teece, Trial Transcript of March 28, 2006 Hearing