The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion denied the motion from Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, to dismiss a penalty action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Timothy Reif said that the U.S. properly identified the "who, what, when, where, and how" of Ho's alleged fraud over the alleged illegal importation of high-intensity discharge headlight conversion kits, so personal jurisdiction was established. However, Reif denied in part and granted in part Ho's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the U.S. made insufficient factual allegations over Ho's knowledge and intent to violate customs law based on fraud. The judge did give the U.S. the opportunity to amend its complaint.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by not including exporter Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in the all-others rate in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering entries in 2019-2020, Echjay argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00172).
The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The Commerce Department verified that countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. and its U.S. customers did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 8. However, Commerce said that it still believes that the use of adverse facts available over the program is warranted since the Chinese government did not provide the requested information supposedly needed for a full analysis of whether the respondent and its U.S. customers benefitted from the EBCP (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00166).
The U.S.'s rationale for its motion to stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade is "remarkable," and essentially concedes that CBP cannot back its evasion finding, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) said in a July 6 brief opposing the stay. The stay motion wants to halt proceedings at CIT so a covered merchandise referral can be issued to the Commerce Department, but the plaintiffs said that such a referral is not possible, the case has been narrowed to record issues and the move signals a concession on the facts (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00192).
The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. can't withdraw from Hongteo's customs case. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kyasov of Rock Trade Law -- must first identify substitute counsel. Pilon and Kyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo didn't pay its outstanding legal fees.
The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's lawsuit contesting CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels from China. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since the liquidation of the entries wasn't a protestable decision. The court instead would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) rather than Section 1581(a) and (i) as claimed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could have raised its claims -- including one that says the duties violate the Eighth Amendment -- by requesting a review of the AD/CVD orders, Barnett said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government provided a countervailable subsidy via the provision of carbon emission permits to exporter Hyundai Steel violates the law, Hyundai argued in a July 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since the requirement to buy carbon emission permits places a cost on the company, and the Korean government didn't forgo revenue by providing an additional permit allocation to Hyundai, the provision of the permits doesn't constitute a countervailable benefit, the complaint said (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #22-00170).