The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The U.S. opposed Canadian lumber exporters' bid to get the court to clarify its instruction to CBP to "discontinue ... the collection of" cash deposits made on entries brought in before a prior Court of International Trade decision, which said it wasn't equitable to subject the companies' exports to the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
Court-ordered reliquidations aren't actions taken by CBP and can't be protested, the government said in oral arguments held Dec. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Target's appeal of a liquidation ordered by CIT, the U.S. said (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
Amendments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's practice rules officially took effect Dec. 1, the court announced. The changes incorporated all procedural requirements for petitioners for panel rehearings and rehearings en banc into one rule, though no substantive changes were made to the rule (see 2409050005). As a result of the change, CAFC updated its information sheet on rehearing petitions.
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 U.S. and defendant-intervenors each replied Nov. 26 to importer CME Acquisition’s August motion for judgment (see 2408220024). They argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has put the burden on exporters to show that averaged adverse facts available rates for non-selected respondents via the expected method is unreasonable (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).
Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider its rejection of the company's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction. Filing a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, J.D. Irving said the appellate court's decision is "grounded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and fact" related to its claim (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).
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.
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed a trio of opening briefs in its three concurrent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are seeking to account for the exclusion of exporter Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 19 adopted amendments to its practice rules and notes and attorney discipline rules, the court announced. The changes will take effect Dec. 1 and will apply to "all cases filed order pending on or after" Dec. 1, unless otherwise ordered, the court said.