The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the countervailing duty on exporter Risen Energy Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Jane Restani said the move was in line with the court's prior decision.
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
New evidence provided by importers found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese plywood after a Royal Brush-driven remand was insufficient to change the ultimate finding of the investigation, the United States said Dec. 13 in response to the importers’ remand redetermination comments (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914).
The Commerce Department has the power to extend its deadlines for submission of factual information on its own -- without responding to an extension request from a submitting party, the U.S. said in opposition to a domestic boltless steel shelf producer Dec. 13 (Edsal Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 25-00087).
The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to take up TikTok's case against the bill either banning the app or forcing it to divest its U.S. operations. The court granted the TikTok's petition for writ of certiorari though it deferred its application for an injunction against the bill pending oral argument. Initial briefs in the suit are due by Dec. 27 (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, Sup. Ct. # 24-656).
Correction: Patrick Gill of Sandler Travis served as the attorney for Target during the oral argument session in the Target Corp. v. U.S. case (see 2412060063).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 16 issued its mandate in a customs suit on the classification of importer Shamrock Building Materials' steel tubing with insulating material (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
A recent Court of International Trade decision reviewing the Commerce Department's differential pricing methodology under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is relevant to resolve a nearly identical claim in a separate case, the U.S. told the trade court in a notice of supplemental authority (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
Supporting its July motion for judgment (see 2407160051), Belgium citrate exporter Citribel again asked the Court of International Trade Dec. 6 to find that the Commerce Department’s refusal to conduct quarterly conversion cost analyses is unreasonable (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).
The U.S. opened a customs penalty suit against New York-based importer Courtside Market last week, accusing the company of negligently skirting duties on its inkjet fabric rolls (United States v. Courtside Market, CIT # 24-00233).