Countervailing duty petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corp. challenged the Commerce Department's refusal to use adverse facts available against exporters Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. in an administrative review of the CVD order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 24-00118).
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).
Wisconsin companies Precision Cable Assemblies and Global Engineered Products, along with their chief executives Ryan Schmus and Richard Horky, paid more than $10 million to settle charges they avoided millions of dollars in customs duties on Chinese goods, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Russian exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department contradicted the countervailing duty statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 7, the exporter said Commerce can't find that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" by only comparing its usage among a subset of natural gas users as opposed to all natural gas users (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping suit and secure an injunction on its entries because its entries have "already been liquidated." Judge Jane Restani said that because the company failed to secure an injunction from the court prior to the liquidation of its entries, the court can't provide the relief the company seeks.
Three wildlife advocacy groups took to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 to contest the collective failure of the Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security departments and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban fish or fish products exported from fisheries that don't meet U.S. bycatch standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gina Raimondo, CIT # 24-00148).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. Judge Claire Kelly said IRAdvocates failed to show that CBP's inaction "has harmed a core business or diminished any asset."
The American Bar Association's International Law Section last week submitted comments on the Treasury Department's proposed outbound investment rules, suggesting a range of changes the agency should make to further clarify its new rules and adequately set their scope.
The U.S. will appear for oral argument in an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit despite appellants Risen Energy Co. and Canadian Solar waiving their rights to appear. Risen initially brought suit to challenge the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China. The company said the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). DOJ attorney Ashley Akers will appear for the government (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).