Michael Granston, former deputy assistant attorney general for the Commercial Litigation Branch in DOJ's Civil Division, has rejoined Covington as a partner in the False Claims Act investigations and litigation practice group, the firm announced. Granston worked at DOJ for nearly 30 years, serving as deputy assistant attorney general since 2019, where he managed litigation and enforcement of FCA, international trade and intellectual property matters. Before going to DOJ, he was an associate in Covington’s litigation and white collar practice groups.
Two companies, Rugby Holdings and Hardwoods Specialty Products, dropped their challenges to the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in anti-circumvention inquiries regarding antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to requests for comment (Rugby Holdings LLC v. United States, CIT #s 25-00119, -00122) (Hardwoods Specialty Products US v. United States, CIT #s 25-00117, -00121).
Petitioner Giorgio Foods on Sept. 8 said it will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the antidumping duty investigation on Dutch mushrooms to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the decision, Judge M. Miller Baker said the Commerce Department permissibly picked Germany as the third country for determining AD respondent Prochamp's normal value, which ultimately led to a zero percent dumping margin for the respondent (see 2507160066). Specifically, Baker said the agency fully supported its efforts to account for the percentage of Prochamp's product sold to Germany that is actually resold in another country and, thus, its finding that Germany remained the best comparison market (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 sustained the Commerce Department's application of its quarterly cost methodology to analyze exporter Officine Tecnosider's sales during the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce adequately explained its approach, which stemmed from difficulties using Tecnosider's U.S. sales to analyze correlations between sales and costs of production, and why it "produces reasonable and reliable results."
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week appeared skeptical of arguments made by counsel for Midwest-CBK that its goods sent to U.S. customers from Canadian warehouses weren't sold "for exportation into the United States" and thus were properly liquidated using deductive value (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).
The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and to do so on an expedited basis. The court set a briefing schedule that would conclude by Oct. 30 and set argument for the first week of November (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
Detroit Axle, the company challenging President Donald Trump's decision to eliminate the de minimis threshold on goods from China, moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's stay of its case pending the lead suit on tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The company said while the relief it's seeking initially overlapped with the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the lead tariff suit, that's "no longer the case" in light of Trump's recent executive order rescinding the de minimis threshold globally (Axle of Dearborn d/b/a Detroit Axle v. United States, CIT # 25-00091).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to stay two cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The U.S. asked for a stay in both appeals, one brought by the State of California and the other by members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe, following the government's request for the Supreme Court to review a separate case on the tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 8 dismissed exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies' case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Jane Restani said the company failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one.
The Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available against antidumping duty respondent Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry for failing to remedy deficiencies in its cost reconciliation submission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Sept. 8. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark also said Commerce wasn't required to provide Corinth with an opportunity to comment on the agency's analysis that led to the conclusion that the company's reported costs didn't reconcile with its financial accounting system.