OPINION

WALLACH, Judge:

I

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Giorgio Foods, Inc. ("Giorgio" or "Plaintiff") filed a Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint ("Plaintiff's Motion") seeking to amend its Complaint in five ways. First, in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed.Cir.2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3273, 176 L.Ed.2d 1182 (2010), Giorgio wishes to drop its First Amendment facial challenge to the petition support eligibility requirement of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) ("CDSOA") while maintaining its challenge to the requirement as applied to Giorgio. Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint ("Plaintiff's Memo") at 2-3. Second, Giorgio wishes to drop its Equal Protection facial challenge to the petition support eligibility requirement of the CDSOA while maintaining its challenge to the requirement as applied to Giorgio. Id. Third, Giorgio requests to add a claim "for statutory violations, claiming that the [U.S. International Trade Commission] and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] acted inconsistently with the statute in ruling that Giorgio had not satisfied the statute's petition support requirement, and in otherwise denying CDSOA distributions to Giorgio." Id. Fourth, Giorgio also requests to add a claim, "in the alternative, for violation of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 3. Fifth, Giorgio seeks to clarify its requested relief "to state that it is specifically seeking money damages from the United States." Id. at 4. The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).

For the reasons stated below, Giorgio's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As to its first and second requests, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED; as to its third, fourth, and fifth requests, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

II

BACKGROUND

In order to qualify for distributions under the CDSOA,1 an entity must qualify as an "affected domestic producer." 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a) (2000) (repealed 2006); see also SKF USA, 556 F.3d 1337; Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 400 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir.2005). An "affected domestic producer" is defined as either a "petitioner" or an "interested party in support of the petition with respect to which an antidumping duty order... has been entered," the latter indicating its support "by letter or through questionnaire response." 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(b)(1)(A), (d)(1) (2000) (repealed 2006).

Prior to the enactment of the CDSOA, from 1998-99, the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") conducted antidumping duty injury investigations concerning certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia. See Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. No. 4 at 2, 4.2 In response to the ITC's questionnaires in these investigations, Plaintiff "indicated that it (1) took no position with respect to the petition filed against preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, and Indonesia, and (2) opposed the petition with respect to India." Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 59-2 at 8.3

In May 2003, Giorgio commenced this action to challenge its exclusion from the list of affected domestic producers compiled by the ITC and from the resulting distributions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") of funds under the CDSOA. Id. at 5-6. Giorgio then sought to amend its original complaint, abandoning its statutory claim that the ITC violated the CDSOA and adding an Equal Protection Clause constitutional claim as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. Giorgio Foods, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, Doc. No. 59 at 1.4 The court granted Giorgio's motion to amend its original complaint in part. Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT 1261, 515 F.Supp.2d 1313 (2007).5 Giorgio then successfully sought to include in the administrative record documents from the preliminary and final antidumping injury investigations regarding Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia, Invs. 731-TA-776-779. Plaintiff's Motion to Complete the ITC Record, Doc. No. 95; Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 755 F.Supp.2d 1342 (CIT 2011).

Plaintiff now "seeks to amend and supplement its complaint to take into consideration (1) the Federal Circuit's decision in [SKF ], (2) the documents Giorgio obtained from the [ITC] after the Court granted Giorgio's Motion to Complete The Agency Record, and (3) new facts that have occurred since the acceptance by this Court of the First Amended Complaint in 2007." Plaintiff's Motion at 1 (internal citations omitted).

III

STANDARD OF REVIEW

USCIT R. 15(a), which parallels Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs amendments to a party's complaint. When a party seeks to amend its pleading before a trial has been set, amendments may be granted only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. USCIT R. 15(a)(2).6 The granting of a motion for leave to amend the pleadings is within the sound discretion of the court. Intrepid v. Pollock, 907 F.2d 1125, 1129 (Fed.Cir.1990). Absent any dilatory motive, undue cause for delay, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments, futility of amendment, or undue prejudice to the opposing party, leave to amend should be liberally given. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). "Futility of the proposed amendment is an adequate reason to deny leave to amend." Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2000). In exercising its discretion, the court "will consider a variety of factors including, but not limited to, (1) the timeliness of the motion to amend the pleadings; (2) the potential prejudice to the opposing party; (3) whether additional discovery will be necessary; (4) the procedural posture of the litigation; (5) whether the omitted counterclaim is compulsory; (6) the impact on the court's docket; and (7) the public interest." Tomoegawa (U.S.A.), Inc. v. United States, 15 CIT 182, 186, 763 F.Supp. 614, 618 (1991) (citing Budd Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 109 F.R.D. 561, 563 (E.D.Mich.1986)).

IV

DISCUSSION

The crux of Defendant Customs' opposition to Giorgio's first through fourth requests to amend is Custom's reading of the Federal Circuit's holding in SKF. See Defendant United States Customs and Border Protection's Response to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend the Complaint ("Customs' Response").7 According to Customs, the "Federal Circuit essentially held that a producer must both (1) indicate its support of the petition (by checking the support box on the questionnaire) and (2) demonstrate that its support of the petition is not merely abstract (through active participation)." Id. at 6 (citing SKF, 556 F.3d at 1353 n. 26) (emphasis in original); see id. at 10 (citing SKF, 556 F.3d at 1352-54). Customs argues that because Giorgio "concedes that it opposed the antidumping petition with respect to India and took no position with respect to the antidumping petitions regarding Chile, China and Indonesia," id. at 10, Giorgio's proposed amendments for its first four claims should all be rejected as futile, see id.8

Giorgio's first and second requests to amend its complaint, abandoning its constitutional facial challenges to the CDSOA, are granted. Infra Part IV.A. All of Giorgio's remaining requests are denied. Infra Parts IV.B-D.

A

Giorgio's First And Second Requests, Abandoning Its Constitutional Facial Challenges To The CDSOA, Are Granted

With regards to Giorgio's first and second requests, the court has previously encountered Defendant's arguments in a similar context;9 in response the court found:

Std. Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 11-032, 2011 WL 1312487, at *3, 2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 30, at *10-11 (CIT March 23, 2011) (granting Plaintiff's motions to amend) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 ("Of course, the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.")).

Similarly here, neither Defendants nor Defendant-Intervenors posit that allowing the proposed amendment would prejudice any of the parties. See Customs' Response; Defendant United States International Trade Commission's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint ("ITC's Opposition"); Defendant-Intervenors' Joint Response to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint ("Defendant-Intervenors' Response"). Additionally, nothing in Giorgio's first two requests presents anything new to the court, see Complaint; Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint; as Giorgio notes "[t]he first and second amendments Giorgio proposes narrow the case by eliminating its two facial constitutional challenges, while retaining Giorgio's as applied challenges. These amendments thus streamline the case," Plaintiff's Memo at 5.

The court grants plaintiff's motion with regards to its first and second requests.10

B

Giorgio's Third Request, To Reinstate Its Previously Abandoned Statutory Claim, Is Denied

With regards to Giorgio's third request, Defendant ITC argues that

ITC's Opposition at 2. ITC states that it "is not arguing the meaning of the Federal Circuit's decision in [SKF] to establish the proper test of producer's petition support status under the statute nor does the Commission believe that the Court must resolve the issue at this time to deny Giorgio's motion to include the proposed statutory claim." Id. at 11 n. 3. Defendant-Intervenors agree that "Plaintiff's purported `new' claim is not premised on any facts or legal theories previously unknown to Plaintiff" and is in fact "identical to a claim that Plaintiff dismissed four years ago in order to allow the court to focus instead on what Plaintiff called `legitimate claims.'" Defendant-Intervenors' Response at 2 (emphasis in original).

Giorgio argues that its third proposed amendment is a new claim alleging that "(1) the Commission's eligibility determination for Giorgio, and (2) [Customs'] refusal to provide distributions to Giorgio, are inconsistent with the CDSOA's petition support requirement as now construed by the Federal Circuit in SKF." Plaintiff's Memo at 6. Giorgio further contends that "[t]his claim differs in both scope and substance from the statutory claim Giorgio had raised in its initial complaint but later withdrew." Id. Specifically, Giorgio alleges that its new claim (1) will include a challenge to the antidumping duty order resulting from the investigation concerning certain preserved mushrooms from India, whereas before Giorgio only alleged a claim with regards to antidumping duty orders resulting from the investigations for China, Chile, and Indonesia and (2) is "predicated on SKF's construction of the statute, which was unknown both at the time Giorgio filed its original complaint and at the time it withdrew its original statutory claim." Plaintiff's Memo at 6 n. 2.

Giorgio's third request is denied. Giorgio's new claim is not substantively different from its previously abandoned claim; Giorgio's attempt to add a new claim is futile since Giorgio specifically opposed the antidumping petition with respect to India, Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint at 8, and is therefore precluded from asserting a CDSOA violation claim after SKF. See SKF, 556 F.3d at 1359 (stating it was "thus rational for Congress to conclude that those who did not support the petition should not be rewarded"); Candle Corp. of Am. v. United States, 374 F.3d 1087, 1094 (Fed.Cir.2004) ("The purpose of the statute is quite clear—to bar opposers of antidumping investigations from securing payments either directly or through the acquisition of supporting parties").11

C

Giorgio's Fourth Request, To Add A Claim For Violation Of The Due Process Clause, Is Denied

Giorgio "also seeks to add substantive and procedural due process claims," Plaintiff's Memo at 9, arguing that "[p]rocedurally... as the CDSOA provided Giorgio no notice of or opportunity for any proceeding in which it could demonstrate the actions it took in support of the petition, [Giorgio] is entitled to a trial de novo on such issues before this Court, which it seeks not only under its Claims One and Two but also under Claim Three," id. at 10.

Defendant argues that "Giorgio fails to allege facts that would state a claim for a due process violation." Customs' Response at 11. Because Defendant asserts that the CDSOA "actually precludes Giorgio from receiving CDSOA distributions," Defendant argues Giorgio is unable to assert a "legitimate claim of entitlement," necessary to make a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore should be rejected for futility. Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

In granting Giorgio's first and second requests, see supra Parts IV.A and IV.B, the court has already rejected Defendant's argument that the CDSOA definitively "precludes Giorgio from receiving CDSOA distributions," Customs' Response at 11 (emphasis in original). However, Giorgio has failed to meet its burden of providing facts that would state a claim for a due process violation. As pointed out by Giorgio, "[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (internal citations omitted) cited by Plaintiff's Memo at 11. Giorgio, however, has had and continues to have an opportunity to challenge its exclusion from the list of those receiving distributions compiled by Customs. See Complaint (providing the procedural background prior to Giorgio's filing of the present case).12 Giorgio's fourth request is denied.

D

Giorgio's Fifth Request, To Add A Claim For Money Damages, Is Denied

Giorgio argues that it should be allowed "to expand and clarify its request for relief, including by expressly requesting an award of money damages against the United States." Plaintiff's Memo at 12. Giorgio asserts any objection would be "frivolous," because "every final judgment of this Court `should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleading,'" id. at 13 (citing USCIT R. 54(c)), and because 28 U.S.C. § 2643 "authorizes entry of a money judgment against the United States `in any civil action commenced under section 1581 or 1582 of this title,'" id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2643(a)(1)). Giorgio argues that Defendants ignore the latter provision when asserting that the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), the applicable statute when jurisdiction is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), see 28 U.S.C. § 2640(e), prevents money damages from being awarded due to the APA's limited sovereign immunity provision. Plaintiff's Memo at 13.

Customs argues that "[c]ontrary to Giorgio's assertions, the Court of International Trade is not permitted to issue money judgments in section 1581(i) cases." Customs' Response at 12. In support of its position, Customs cites Wopsock v. Natchees, 454 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2006) ("The APA does not authorize an award of money damages at all; to the contrary, section 10(a) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, specifically limits the Act to actions `seeking relief other than money damages.'"),13 asserting also that "this Court and the Federal Circuit have repeatedly recognized that a plaintiff in a section 1581(i) case must generally rely upon the waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the APA." Customs' Response at 12 (internal citations omitted).14

Giorgio incorrectly conflates the terms of the relief requested. The Supreme Court, when discussing section 702 of the APA, noted

Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 893-894, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988) (internal quotes, citations, and original emphasis omitted). The situation described by the Bowen Court is similar to the one here. Giorgio requests the following relief in its Proposed Second Amended Complaint:

Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 150-1 at 27 (emphasis added). Except as an unnecessary label, nowhere does Giorgio seek, as the Supreme Court has defined it in this context, "money damages" but only "the recovery of specific property or monies." Bowen, 487 U.S. at 893-894, 108 S.Ct. 2722; see Proposed Second Amended Complaint at 27.15

Because Giorgio is not seeking monetary damages, only monetary compensation which has been articulated in its Plaintiff's Proposed First Amended Complaint,16 and because, as pointed out by Giorgio, "every final judgment of this Court `should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleading,'" Plaintiff's Memo at 13 (citing USCIT R. 54(c)), the court agrees with Giorgio's counsel at oral argument that Giorgio's fifth request is unnecessary.17 Giorgio's fifth request is denied.18

V

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Giorgio's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As to its first and second requests, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED; as to its third, fourth, and fifth requests, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.