The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
The Court of International Trade illegally applied a lower standard for its "substantially dependent" test when finding that certain subsidies apply to Spanish olive growers, improperly using a post-codification administrative decision to apply the lower standard, some Spanish olive growers argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jan. 17, the plaintiff-appellants said allowing Commerce to gauge its decisions against its own later rulings and not the unambiguous statute "would frustrate the core tenets of U.S. administrative law and allow Commerce to amend legislation through its own administrative process" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Both the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission committed various errors in their antidumping duty investigations on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca said in three related complaints, all filed Jan. 13 at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to an AD order's revocation. The trade court said the Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when enforcing the filing deadline. The appellate court affirmed without an opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia. At the trade court, Commerce reversed the outcome of the actual investigation, leading to a lack of countervailable subsidization and a rescinding of the order.
The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Jan. 18 order. Judge Stephen Vaden held that Commerce appropriately held that the window wall systems qualified for the "finished goods kit" exclusion to the orders and were properly distinguished from curtain wall units. The judge added that the scope ruling does not cut against past scope decisions.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 18 opinion sent back an antidumping review over the Commerce Department's decision to reject AD petitioner Nucor Tubular's ministerial error comments as untimely. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the exception to the requirement that comments be timely filed applies in this case since Commerce's "unintentional errors became apparent only in the Final Results" of the AD review. Since Nucor should have been allowed to submit its comments on the ministerial error, the court remanded the review to consider the error "and respond accordingly," the judge said.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 17 order dismissed two customs cases seeking the retroactive application of Section 301 exclusions. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's finding in ARP Materials v. U.S., which said that an importer needs a protest with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 exclusions (see 2209060035), the trade court dismissed the two cases -- from Poppin and Lighting Partners Jax. Both actions sought to establish jurisdiction at the court under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, as opposed to Section 1581(a) (Poppin v. United States, CIT # 20-00158) (Lighting Partners Jax v. United States, CIT # 20-03529).