Asking for 2,300 More Words in Reply, US Says Plaintiff Filed Against Court Rules
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for leave to exceed its 7,000 word limit by 2,300 words in a reply brief amid its case against a Chinese exporter of automobile accessories (see 2404100071) (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
It alleged that plaintiff, Keystone Automotive Operations, claiming to apply court procedural rule 56.3, filed a prohibited reply brief to DOJ’s reply to Keystone’s statement of undisputed facts.
“No part of Rule 56.3 allows for a separate reply to an opponent’s Rule 56.3(b) response to the movant’s Rule 56.3(a) statement of facts,” it said. “This improper submission has permitted plaintiff to make additional arguments to the Court beyond those contained in its merits briefing.”
It said that instead of asking the court to strike Keystone’s filing, it was seeking the expanded word count so that it could “properly respond.”
It also said that the U.S.’s reply will “require a detailed discussion of the evidentiary record, the various tariff terms, definitions, rules of interpretation, and case law.”