Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade granted three wildlife advocacy groups' voluntary dismissal of a case seeking an import ban on fisheries from nine countries after the groups reached a settlement with the U.S. government. Judge Gary Katzmann dropped the case, though he retained jurisdiction over the matter to oversee implementation of the settlement, at the parties' request.
Exporter Wabtec filed a supplemental brief March 21 claiming that an International Trade Commission investigation was trying to reach lost export sales on behalf of the domestic industry (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00160, -00161).
Wisconsin man Gary Barnes doesn't have constitutional or prudential standing to challenge the president's right to impose tariffs, the U.S. argued in a March 21 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The government claimed that Barnes failed to "allege a particularized and concrete injury to himself," and instead claimed that "unidentified American consumers more generally" will be harmed by the supposed constitutional violations the president commits when imposing tariffs (Gary Barnes v. United States, CIT # 25-00043).
The U.S. defended the Commerce Department's ability to require petitioners to file a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a reply brief on March 21, the government said the "whole-text canon of statutory interpretation" doesn't support petitioner Archroma's challenge to this requirement, since the statute on which the company bases its claim "does not limit Commerce’s power to impose procedural requirements to be met before a domestic interested party may submit the information called for by the statute" (Archroma U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to investigate the provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration in South Korea after three remands before the trade court. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce reasonably laid out the evidence petitioner Nucor Corp. should have provided to "justify a new subsidy investigation of this subset of the broader electricity pricing scheme."
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky declared a mistrial in a case against defense contractor Quadrant Magnetics for violating export controls after the government sent the company thousands of pages of documents relevant to the case immediately prior to and during the company's trial (United States v. Quadrant Magnetics, W.D. Ky. # 3:22-00088).
Importer Under the Weather defended its motion for leave to amend its complaint in a customs case, arguing that the government's grounds for opposition to the motion, untimeliness and prejudice, don't defeat it. The importer said any delay the Court of International Trade might find due to the motion isn't "undue" and that the amendment doesn't prejudice the U.S., since the amendment would add a claim based on the "same transactions and events as the original complaint" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
In another missed deadline case (see 2501070084, 2409100065) and 2501270069), Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing said again March 17 that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have hit it with adverse facts available for assuming a deadline extension offered to most separate rate review respondents had also been granted to it (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00085).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.