The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Companies to Appeal CIT Decision Tossing Section 232 Exclusion Challenge Due to Unliquidated Entries
Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Dong-A Steel Co.'s bid to intervene in an antidumping duty case, the U.S. argued in a July 28 brief at the trade court. DOJ argued that Dong-A cannot show that it will suffer injury over the Commerce Department's finding over plaintiff HiSteel Co.'s dumping margin since Dong-A got its own individual dumping margin for its exports that would be unaffected by any decision in HiSteel's case (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a July 29 judgment dismissed ship reseller Crocus Investments's claim against Marine Transport Logistics' high storage fees. The court ruled that the Federal Maritime Commission appropriately changed its interpretation of 46 U.S.C. Section 41102(c), which bars certain ocean transportation industry members for failing to enforce reasonable regulations relating to storing property. The new interpretation says that a party is only liable for violations of this rule occurring on a continued basis and not a one-off mishap (Crocus Investments v. Federal Maritime Commission, D.C. Cir. #21-1199).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. Steel will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling that found the Commerce Department appropriately determined an Australian exporter didn't reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and was correct not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price (see 2206100066). U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff said in a July 27 notice of appeal. The case concerns the administrative review of the AD duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. CIT Judge Richard Eaton said the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser" (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #20-03815).
The Commerce Department illegally used total adverse facts available on the grounds that antidumping respondent Kumar Industries failed to fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Kumar said in a July 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's position that Kumar failed to hand over all of the information regarding its affiliation status is incorrect since the respondent gave "extensive information" on its affiliation status with two unnamed companies "at every occasion in the form and manner requested by Commerce," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
Angela Ellard, a deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, called on WTO member governments to deposit instruments of acceptance with the multilateral trade organization to help the recently negotiated fishery subsidies agreement enter into force. Speaking at a virtual Washington International Trade Association event July 28, Ellard laid out the path ahead for the full adoption of the fisheries agreement while reflecting on steps the WTO looks to take on helping countries fully implement the obligations tied into the agreement. The DDG also spoke of a fund provided for in the agreement which will help less developed countries with the notification and transparency elements of the deal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely.
The Government Accountability Office, in a July 25 decision, dismissed a protest from shipping container manufacturer Sea Box contesting the terms of a Defense Logistics Agency request for quotations (RFQ) for freight containers. Sea Box said the solicitation should have more information on the Buy American Act's requirement for domestic end products, but GAO ruled the protest doesn't cite any procurement law or regulation requiring the DLA to include such information in the solicitation.