Far East, Ciel, APPI, InterGlobal, and Libery Woods transshipped plywood through Vietnam to evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, falsely declaring the plywood was of Vietnamese origin, CBP said in a Jan. 30 Enforce and Protect Act determination.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department cannot ignore a Court of International Trade's ruling that the evidence on which the agency relied to issue a scope ruling was not valid in its scope redetermination, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 4 brief. Replying to defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions' comments on Commerce's decision to exclude certain flanges from the scope of the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, DOJ said that while it initially agreed with ASC's arguments, it cannot simply disregard the court's decision (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).
The Court of International Trade reported that it settled all issues via mediation in two cases over the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries, but the specifics of mediation were not made known (N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).
CBP took exporter LB Wood Cambodia's statements "completely out of context" in an "unceasing attempt to crucify" the company in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation, plaintiff-intervenor Interglobal said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP ascribed "the worst possible motives" to all the parties to the litigation, including LB Wood, and used "its own misstated presumption as grounds for pole-vaulting" to the conclusion that any evidence that undermines the agency's decisions is "inherently suspect," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #20-03914).
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reconsider its wrongfully decided opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty proceedings, three defendant-appellants told the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 2 brief. Seeking a full court hearing, Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products said that the decision violates D.C. Circuit precedents over the "operation of ordinary canons of statutory construction in the administrative law context," and the Federal Circuit's precedents over deference afforded to Commerce (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a federal district court's decision to dismiss a challenge to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's enforcement of a federal gasoline-volatility regulation on a duty-free gas station on the Canadian border. The regulation applies to Ammex's gas station, even though the gas station sells gas only for export because cars must drive into Canada after filling up, the appeals court said (Ammex v. Gary McDowell, 6th Cir. #20-1250).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A group of gun manufacturers' and one gun distributor's bid to toss a case filed by the Mexican government alleging that the defendants carry out illegal selling practices that facilitate the trafficking of weapons into Mexico falls flat, the Mexican government argued in a Jan. 31 reply brief. Filing its reply at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Mexican government said that the manufacturers and distributor improperly seek legal shelter under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, since the protection from lawsuit entailed in this act only applies to harm caused in the U.S. and not in Mexico, as the Mexican government alleges (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).
The Court of International Trade should throw out Wheatland Tube's case intended to compel CBP to respond to the company's requests for information and a tariff classification ruling because Wheatland has received all the relief to which it is legally entitled, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 2 motion to dismiss the case. CBP has already responded to this RFI and the petition for a tariff classification ruling over the company's electrical conduits from Mexico, DOJ said. CBP also told Wheatland it agrees with the company's stance on the correct classification of its steel conduit pipe and was defending this position in separate litigation (Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00004).