The Court of International Trade's recent decision that it has subject matter jurisdiction in a challenge to an addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "directly addresses" a jurisdictional issue raised by the trade court in a separate action, importer Southern Cross said in a Dec. 1 notice of supplemental authority. CIT's ruling in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. shows that the court has jurisdiction to hear the importer's case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of importer Southern Cross Seafoods' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the brief said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
The EU General Court on Nov. 29 rejected Russian oligarch German Khan's challenge to his sanctions listing, according to an unofficial translation. The listing criteria had a proper legal basis and were not disproportional, the court said.
Importer Click Heat filed a notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 29 in its customs suit regarding its heat packs. The importer filed the suit to challenge CBP's dismissal of its protest claiming the heat packs should receive first sale valuation. Counsel for Click Heat declined to comment (Click Heat v. United States, CIT # 21-00119).
The Commerce Department improperly came to the conclusion that Indian exporter Balkrishna Industries didn't use, or benefit from, India's Advanced Authorization Scheme in the 2021 countervailing duty review on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a Nov. 28 complaint. Titan Tire said that Commerce based its finding on a "post hoc, incomplete, and cursory examination" conducted by the Indian government related to the program (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
Solar cell exporter Risen Energy Co. may not amend its complaint to add a claim against the countervailability of China's Article 26(2) tax program in a suit challenging the 2020 countervailing duty review on solar cells from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said that because the issue was not raised administratively at any point, Risen now could not bring the claim before the court. Waiving the exhaustion requirement is "inappropriate" because the exporter does not raise a "pure question of law" but one that requires additions to the record, Restani said.
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. is likely to show that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over the company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the trade court ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters, led by Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, will appeal a Court of International Trade decision sustaining the use of adverse facts available on Salzgitter's sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany. While the trade court upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use facts available in 2019, the court sent back the way Commerce used partial AFA in the investigation. The agency's decision was eventually sustained over Salzgitter's claim that the use of partial AFA was unreasonable or unlawful (see 2311160012). According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order ordered parties in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey to respond to the government's request for a partial remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment for respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret. The U.S. said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments (see 2311270064) (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).
The Commerce Department went too far when it rejected all of Vietnamese exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.'s submitted factual information in three anti-circumvention inquiries on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, Taiwan and South Korea, Hoa Phat said in a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said that while Commerce has some discretion in how it conducts AD proceedings, "there is substantial court precedent that Commerce cannot abuse this discretion" (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, CIT #s 23-00248, -00249, -00250).