The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally expanded the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck wheels from China to include truck wheels made in a third country using either Chinese-origin rims or Chinese-origin discs, but not both, exporter Asia Wheel Co., Ltd., said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since Asia Wheel makes truck wheels using only Chinese-origin discs, the agency illegally included these goods under the scope of the orders, the company argued (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).
Counsel for steel importer California Steel Industries requested a status conference regarding a pending motion from the Commerce Department for voluntary remand in a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case. Since the last brief in the proceeding was filed over a year ago, on June 9, 2022, California Steel called for the conference regarding the "next steps to resolve" the company's claims while being "mindful of [Judge M. Miller Baker's] busy schedule" (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Commerce asked for the remand so it could make exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. a mandatory respondent in the review to bring the proceeding into compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The Commerce Department can't "short circuit the procedural requirements for new agency action" by declaring that a questionnaire can take the place of on-site verification in an antidumping duty proceeding after initially saying that it can't, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 11 opinion. The agency's change of heart, issued on remand, cuts against the Supreme Court of the U.S. finding in Dept. of Homeland Secuity v. Regents of the Univ. of California, in which the court said that on remand an agency can either take new agency action or further explain its position.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed its third motion for an extension of time to file its reply brief in a suit on how to value cookware imports from Meyer Corp. Submitting the consent motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, DOJ lawyers said their heavy workload warranted the extension of time, which would make the brief due on Aug. 31 instead of Aug. 17. The three extensions together amount to 74 days from the brief's initial due date (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).
The government filed for an unopposed remand at the Court of International Trade of a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. The U.S. said that if the remand is granted, the Commerce Department intends "to treat Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in its administrative review." Counsel for plaintiff Optima Steel consented to the motion, while counsel for petitioner Nucor Corp. took no position on the motion (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
Purchasers of tuna from American Tuna urged the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to move for class certification in their suit that claims that American Tuna and World Wise Foods, its corporate parent, "deceived consumers" by creating the idea that its tuna is caught in U.S. waters. The buyers, led by Jeffrey Craig, said that a "significant portion" of American Tuna's brand tuna, which is branded as "100% American Made," is not caught in the U.S. (Jeffrey Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Tuna, S.D. Calif. # 3:22-00473).