CBP announced that it has opened a formal Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether Zinus evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies from China and has imposed interim measures, according to an Oct. 25 notice. The investigation was launched on July 20, following allegations by CIMC Intermodal Equipment LLC (CIMC) that Pitts Enterprises, Inc., classified imported chassis as products of Vietnam, without disclosing subassembly components of Chinese-origin.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
A company's information shared with counsel jointly representing another firm is not treated as confidential and "cannot serve as a basis for a conflict claim," counsel for defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) cannot claim that the coalition's counsel -- led by Daniel Pickard of Buchanan Ingersoll -- violated the D.C. Bar's rules of ethics, Pickard said (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 26 order allowed Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing, one of the plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation, to withdraw its motion to transfer interest in the case to Hitachi Astemo Americas. Hitachi Astemo Americas said that it wanted to withdraw the motion so it could amend its complaint and other relevant documents to reflect its merger with Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the companies said in their original motion to transfer interest (see 2210140044) (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
ITC Can't Claim Exhaustion Defense Given Release of BPI, Plaintiffs Argue in Row Over Former Counsel
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).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade's March dismissal of a case seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China was correct because the importer properly revoked its statute of limitations waiver, Katana Racing said in an Oct. 24 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
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 Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order gave the U.S. a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results. The government argued in its motion for extension that good cause exists for the delay (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York: