Chinese company Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment (AMEC) and the U.S. are conferring on how to end the company's suit against its designation as a "Chinese military company" after the Pentagon removed the firm's designation earlier this month (Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. China v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-02357).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department reasonably said importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories' enriched isotope compounds fit under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ammonium sulfate from China, the government argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The importer's 15N-enriched ammonium sulfate should have been included under the orders since the orders cover ammonium sulfate in all "physical forms," the government said (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
In response to a Georgia woman’s claim that the customs broker license exam “lacked sufficient information” on four questions, resulting in her failure to pass (see 2402160040), the U.S. said the woman was “entirely incorrect” regarding the questions’ ambiguity (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).
Congress didn't give the Commerce Department authority to deviate from certain principles associated with anti-circumvention proceedings whenever it thinks the effectiveness of an AD/CVD measure has been threatened "by changes in manufacturing methods or supply chains," Solar cell exporter BYD (H.K.) Co. argued. Filing a reply brief last week with the Court of International Trade, BYD said Congress laid out only a "very limited number of specific manufacturing scenarios" that can be deemed "circumvention" (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Teh Fong Min (TFM) International Co. filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week adopting the government's defense of its decision to revoke the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan after no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).
Importer Generac Power Systems brought on Dec. 20 two complaints to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP, in 2020, applied Section 301 tariffs to multiple of its entries despite excluding “substantially identical” merchandise (Generac Power Systems v. U.S., CIT # 20-03882, -03920).
Antidumping duty and countervailing duty petitioners the U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition and United Steelworkers argued that the International Trade Commission incorrectly concluded that aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam didn't injure the U.S. industry (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00209).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Dec. 23 stayed a Texas court's order enjoining the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act's (CTA's) beneficial ownership information reporting requirements. Judges Carl Stewart, Catharina Haynes and Stephen Higginson said the government is likely to succeed in defending the CTA's constitutionality given that the act's reporting requirements squarely fall within over a century of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding Congress' power under the commerce clause, the court said (Texas Top Cop Shop v. Merrick Garland, 5th Cir. # 24-40792).