Rulings, remedies and court proceedings for customs and trade professionals

Biography for Jacob Kopnick

Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.

Recent Articles by Jacob Kopnick

Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing Bid Over Decision Reversing AFA for Transformers

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellee Hitachi Energy USA's motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty case. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).Read More >>

Amsted Amends Complaint in Conflict-of-Interest Suit to Include Alleged Ethics Breach

Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade, led by Amsted Rail Co., amended their complaint after a similar case of theirs against the International Trade Commission was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint added a specific alleged instance in which ARC gave its former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now of Buchanan Ingersoll, information that is now being used against it in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).Read More >>

CBP Continues to Not Find Evasion on Remand in Shrimp EAPA Case

CBP in a Nov. 21 remand submission to the Court of International Trade continued to find that MSeafood Corporation did not evade antidumping duties by transshipping Indian shrimp through Vietnam. The agency said it believes it complied with the trade court's remand order by having CBP's Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate transmit all documents that were "inadvertently omitted" from the record to the agency's Office of Regulations and Rulings, and placing a revised public version of business confidential information (BC) on the record (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).Read More >>

Plaintiffs in Conflict-of-Interest Suit Want Former Counsel Barred From ITC Proceeding Pending Appeal

Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit asked the Court of International Trade for an injunction barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from participating in a set of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations before the International Trade Commission. Filing a motion for injunction pending appeal after the trade court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., argued that they're likely to succeed on appeal since, at the very least, they raised serious legal questions, warranting a stay order from the court. The plaintiffs also claimed that the court erred by illegally shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to identify specific times ARC shared confidential information with Pickard and Buchanan (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00307).Read More >>

Trade Court Sends Back Commerce's Decision to Decline to Start Successor-in-Interest CCR in CVD Case

The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 18 opinion. In defending its decision, Commerce cited its "significant change" practice, under which it says it will not start a CCR where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since the successor company did not have an individually calculated rate.Read More >>