A recent U.K. Supreme Court ruling could have implications for how certain sanctions-related payment issues are treated under force majeure clauses in contracts.
Court of International Trade Chief Judge Mark Barnett appointed Cassidy Levy's Thomas Beline to be chair of the court's advisory committee, the court announced May 14. The committee's 20 members are lawyers from DOJ and in private practice. The group studies the court's rules of practice and procedures, and recommends improvements.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A pair of exporters shouldn't be allowed to pluck "a few words out of context without examining the full language of that scope" in their challenge to a Commerce Department ruling that steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00143).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 15 said the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand unambiguously includes dual-stenciled pipe, reversing the Court of International Trade's decision.
Mauritius formally accepted the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies May 13, moving the total number of countries that have accepted the deal to 75. The WTO requires 35 more to reach the two-thirds threshold needed for the agreement to be able to enter into effect.
Tire exporters YC Rubber Co. and Sutong Tire Resources alerted the Court of International Trade to a separate CIT decision affirming the Commerce Department's finding that the mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review remained eligible for a separate rate "despite its unwilligness to participate in the administrative review" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).
The U.S. on May 13 moved to dismiss a lawsuit challenging CBP's exclusion of two rubber tire entries, claiming that CIT has no jurisdiction because the entries were excluded at the behest of the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As a result, the exclusions were not protestable decisions made by CBP, so the Court of International Trade had no subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).
German paper exporters Koehler Oberkirch and Koehler Paper on May 13 opposed the government's bid to serve the companies' U.S.-based counsel in a separate case, claiming that the rules don't "permit such service." The exporters said service instead should be effectuated through diplomatic channels, as contemplated by the rules, as this would "respect international comity and due process principles" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the principle of stare decisis requires the appellate court to sustain the legality of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).