Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit at the Court of International Trade invoked three court decisions -- two from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- in a Nov. 9 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., said the cases were discussed during the hearing on the issue held at the trade court (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade properly classified knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The heading provides for "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted" and is "sufficiently broad" to include knit gloves. The plaintiff-appellant, Magid Glove, puts forth a host of "inconsistent and unpersuasive arguments" to vie for classification under HTS heading 3926, which provides for "[o]ther articles of plastics," the brief said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1793).
Antidumping petitioner Ellwood City Co. failed to preserve its objection to the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire in light of on-site verification by not exhausting administrative remedies, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 8 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said Ellwood City had many chances to object to the verification methodology in the AD investigation, but it never did. However, the case was remanded to Commerce over defendant-intervenor and AD respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen's challenge to Commerce's use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in a Nov. 7 dissenting opinion railed against the court system's use of Chevron deference in a case over veterans' disability benefits. Breaking from his colleagues' decision on the petition for writ of certiori, Gorsuch decried the use of Chevron deference as the "kind of judicial abdication" that "disserves both our veterans and the law."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by selecting Romania as the surrogate country for China in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum, Baotou Alcha Aluminum and Alcha International Holdings argued in a Nov. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Bulgaria is both economically comparable to China and has significant production of the subject merchandise, making the selection of Romania illegal, the plaintiffs said. The complaint also objects to Commerce's selection of financial statements, use of partial adverse facts available over raw material consumption, double remedies adjustment and surrogate distance of North American inland train freight (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum v. U.S., CIT #22-00292).
A group of Chinese exporters filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The parties object to Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00291) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).
The Court of International Trade should give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a voluntary remand in a case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act 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, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 8 motion. The voluntary remand would let the NOAA "amend the current comparability findings for certain New Zealand fisheries whose expiration dates conform with the deadlines set forth for other comparability findings to be issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)," the government said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The rehearing motion from plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, "appears to be little more than an impermissible attempt to relitigate an argument" already dispatched by the Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen Vaden held in a Nov. 8 opinion. Ellwood City sought reconsideration of the court's order tossing the challenge to the Commerce Department's failure to conduct on-site verification during an antidumping review, given that the plaintiffs failed to broach the topic administratively. Vaden said that Ellwood City misunderstood "the nexus between futility" and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).