A domestic catfish producer and petitioner brought a case to the Court of International Trade on May 9 contesting the Commerce Department’s 2020-21 review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner is currently involved in ongoing litigation regarding the department’s 2019-20 review (see 2403280061) (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00082).
The Court of International Trade last week granted exporter Red Sun Energy Long An Co.'s motion to supplement the record after the company noted the Commerce Department "omitted several critical pieces of information from the official certified copy" of the record in the 2023 anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Vietnam it filed with the court (Red Sun Energy Long An Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00229).
A status report on Chinese steel exporter Ninestar’s request to be taken off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List (see 2404150051) is due on June 3, Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann said in a May 8 scheduling order. Briefing on the exporter’s motion for judgment will remain stayed until further court order (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Canadian Lumber Exporter Says It Isn’t Barred from Bringing Case to CIT During Separate NAFTA Appeal
A Canadian exporter of softwood lumber said in a May 2 reply brief that its appeal to a NAFTA panel shouldn’t foreclose it from seeking entirely different relief at the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on May 6 granted importer van Gelder's motion to set aside the dismissal of its customs lawsuit, which occurred due to a calendaring mistake from the company's counsel. Judge M. Miler Baker reopened the case and reset the deadline to remove the case from the Customs Case Management Calendar to April 30, 2025 (van Gelder v. United States, CIT # 21-00160).
The U.S. swapped out its lead attorney in a case challenging CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars." The government said Brandon Kennedy, a DOJ trade trial attorney, took the place of Edward Kenny, senior trial counsel at DOJ. The case was brought by importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, to challenge CBP's denial of its protest seeking Section 301 exclusions the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative granted for "side protective attachments" (see 2404220057) (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department was wrong to deduct Section 301 duties from an exporter’s U.S. price as part of its antidumping duty calculation, that exporter said May 3 in defense of an earlier motion for judgment. It said Section 301 duties aren’t “normal import duties,” but rather remedial “special” duties that statute requires be included in export price calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order instructed importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, to address "whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a protest if the basis for the denial" is that CBP was "simply following" the Commerce Department's instructions (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).