The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed exporter Koehler's request for the Court of International Trade to certify its order permitting service on the company's U.S. counsel to allow for an immediate appeal of the order. The government said an immediate appeal will fail to "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" because the U.S. can still effect service through other means if the court's order is reversed (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 granted the government's voluntary remand motion in a case on CBP's finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The government asked for the remand in light of the Commerce Department's scope ruling finding that Zinus' imported bedframes aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).
The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed importer Interglobal Forest's bid for attorney's fees after it prevailed in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. The government said Interglobal can't be considered a "prevailing party" because the court's decision sustaining CBP's remand decision reversing its evasion finding didn't "materially alter the legal relationship of the parties" (Interglobal Forest v. United States, CIT # 22-00240).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 granted a voluntary dismissal bid from conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in their action seeking an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and inshore set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 10 updated its 2024-25 sessions calendar and adopted a new 2025-26 sessions calendar, the court announced. The calendars will see the court hear cases the first full week of each month. In December 2024 and January-May 2025, the court will sit for the entire first full week along with the following Monday.
The U.S. on Sept. 5 unsealed an indictment against Sam Bhambhani, a North Attleboro, Massachusetts, resident and salesman for an unnamed laser source supplier, for allegedly conspiring to violate U.S. export controls and smuggling goods from the U.S. by sending laser welding machines to Russia. Also named in the indictment was Maxim Teslenko, a Russian citizen, who "acted as a reseller of laser equipment to the Russian government."
Importer Amsted Rail Co. argued at the Court of International Trade that the International Trade Commission failed to reconcile its "contradictory conclusions" on the same evidence in finding that the domestic industry was harmed by imports of freight rail couplers. Filing a motion for judgment on Sept. 6, ARC said that didn't account for a key finding in a previous investigation on the freight rail couplers, which said that the domestic industry's health is "disproportionately" tied to demand for the couplers in the original equipment manufacturer market segment (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 struck a brief from U.S. Steel after the company attempted to submit supplemental arguments in a case on Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said that because he rejected the company's bid to join the action, it's not a party to the case and can't file briefs (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
Importer Performance Additives filed its opening brief on Sept. 9 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, claiming that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that various of the company's duty drawback claims weren't "deemed liquidated." The company argued that the trade court imposed conditions on the deemed liquidation rule of 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(a)(2)(A) that don't exist in the statute and imposed the rules of Section 1504(a)(2)(B) despite this law not applying to the company's entries at issue (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: