Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department properly found that it had enough industry support to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products (QSP) from India, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 7 decision. Issuing a partial opinion in the case solely to address the concerns of M S International (MSI), Judge Leo Gordon said that Commerce legally interpreted "producers" of QSPs as excluding QSP fabricators.

The Court of International Trade does in fact have jurisdiction to hear a case over denied attorney access to confidential information in a safeguard proceeding at the International Trade Commission, counsel for LG Electronics told the court in an Oct. 6 reply brief. The denial of access to the proceeding constitutes a final agency action, making the denial eligible for judicial review, the brief said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The U.S.'s bid for more time to respond to importer Eteros Technologies USA's motion for judgment should be denied since the Department of Justice has not shown good cause for the extension, Eteros said in an Oct. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns CBP's seizure of Eteros' motor frame assemblies -- part of a marijuana and plant harvesting unit -- under the premise that the assemblies constitute "drug paraphernalia."

An alleged transshipper in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation was allowed to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade, per an Oct. 7 order. Kingtom Aluminio was originally denied the right to intervene for failing to show a legally protectable interest in the case. Judge Richard Eaton changed his tune in the most recent order, now agreeing that the company has a protectable interest.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) challenges certain elements of the Commerce Department's third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan covering entries in 2018-19, in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade.

Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China, the Court of International Trade held in an Oct. 7 order. After conducting an analysis of the "(k)(2)" factors following an initial remand from CIT, which included comparing the physical characteristics, end uses, consumer expectations and methods of advertising for cupwheels and diamond sawblades, the Commerce Department held that the cupwheels could not be held in the scope of the AD order.

The Commerce Department was wrong to include dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 6 order, remanding the scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration. Seeing as there were no Thai manufacturers who even made line pipe at the time of the AD order, the ITC therefore never made an injury determination on line pipe from Thailand. This led Judge Stephen Vaden to hold that line pipes are excluded from the scope of the order.

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), was denied a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an Oct. 6 order. Since CJE "cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief," the move for a PI was denied. CJE failed to show that Commerce acted ultra vires and in excess of its authority, Judge Reggie Walton said (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-01798).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.