The Court of International Trade on Nov. 28 blocked imports of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. In an opinion that cited renowned conservationist Rachel Carson, Judge Gary Katzmann found plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing two claims in the case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, warranting the injunction. The injunction covers snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from the New Zealand set-net and trawl fisheries.
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to uphold the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to root out "masked" dumping, given a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Nov. 21 reply brief. Responding to the U.S.'s opposition to the rehearing bid, SeAH said that since the Federal Circuit called the use of the Cohen's d test into question in Stupp Corp. v. U.S., the trade court needs to reconsider its ruling made before the CAFC decision (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
A voluntary remand is not needed in a case concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that allegedly have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, plaintiffs Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society argued in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. NOAA's call for a voluntary remand "is a red herring" and would let the agency "avoid the repercussions of its decision to not rule on the" New Zealand government's 2021 comparability findings application by the end of the year -- a move that delays the consideration of new information over the Maui dolphin, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The Court of International Trade erred by upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Commerce's original scope ruling including dual-stenciled pipe was backed by evidence since the pipe met the physical characteristics laid out in the scope of the order "and was made to an industrial specification for standard pipe" (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. must pay more than $100,000 in unpaid duties on an entry of honey from China imported in 2002, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit, filed under Section 1582, echoes another case brought against Aegis that looks to collect duties on entries of garlic that liquidated in 2006 (see 2211010037). The surety in that case has argued that the statute of limitations has passed for the action, claiming that the U.S. has a six-year window to file such action that runs from the date of liquidation. The U.S. says that this window starts from when CBP makes a demand for payment (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping duty respondents' costs of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 23 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "in an analogous case, Hyundai Steel Co., made it illegal for Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when finding normal value based on home market sales, supporting the agency's removal of the adjustment in the present case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellee Hitachi Energy USA's motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty case. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
All World Trade Organization members should join the negotiations over an Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement, Columbia University's Karl Sauvant said in a Nov. 21 submission on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Sauvant laid out three reasons completing and adopting this agreement is important.