The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).

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 should dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).

The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.

The practice of providing tariff schedule subheadings for merchandise sold to customers is "customs business," and requires a customs broker license even if a disclaimer is included that the customer shouldn't rely on the classification, CBP determined in a Sept. 29 ruling, released on Oct. 22.

The U.S. this week charged several Chinese nationals, including Chinese government intelligence officers, for their efforts to obstruct a federal prosecution of Huawei and illegally acquire U.S. technology. In one indictment, DOJ charged two Chinese intelligence officers with trying to steal federal prosecution documents relating to the Huawei case. A second indictment charges four Chinese nationals, including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers, for their involvement in a “long-running intelligence campaign” to acquire sensitive U.S. technology, information and assistance.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.

The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing with partial adverse facts available, saying Tainai should know how to collect factor of production information from its downstream suppliers, given that the agency was conducting the 33rd review of the AD order, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce legally deducted Section 301 duties from Tainai's U.S. price and capped Section 301 duty payments (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00038).

The Commerce Department must revisit its countervailing duty rate calculations for the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act and its finding that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20. However, Judge Claire Kelly upheld the remaining points of contention in the case brought by BGH Edelstahl Siegen. including whether Commerce properly initiated the CVD investigation, the finding that the administrative record is complete, and "the determination that the provisions of the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act, the EEG and KWKG Reduced Surcharge Programs, the ETS Additional Free Emissions Allowances, and the CO2 Compensation Program are countervailable subsidies."