Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).
A Temporary Storage Agreement should end when it is obvious a party to the agreement is no longer seeking court judgment, DOJ said in a Nov. 3 response motion at the Court of International Trade (Virtus Nutrition v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during Nov. 3 oral argument, questioned plaintiff-appellant M S International's (MSI's) position that the Commerce Department failed to include quartz surface product (QSP) fabricators as part of the domestic industry for quartz surface products when initiating the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on QSPs from India (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and the relevant antidumping duty petitioner "fail to understand or simply ignore" key Court of International Trade precedent which says that the Commerce Department has to look at the factual distinction between scenarios where Chinese government-controlled companies had a majority interest in the respondent and where they had a minority interest, Pirelli Tyre Co. argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. Telling the trade court that Commerce's decision to deny Pirelli separate rate status was both illegal and unsupported by substantial evidence, the exporter argued that both the U.S. and the AD petitioner also failed to understand past precedent establishing that Commerce's "beholden theory" must be linked to specific evidence (Pirelli Tyre v. United States, CIT #20-00115).
Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).
Excavators are not backhoes or similar construction equipment and counterweights designed specifically for excavators are not subject to Section 301 steel tariffs, Norca argued in a Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Engineered Products v. United States, CIT #21-00305).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 oral argument questioned importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, over its jurisdictional grounds to challenge a CBP decision, given that the company failed to file a protest. SIS argued that it didn't need to file a protest to challenge the liquidation of its entries, given that there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation. At oral argument, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes probed this position, with Hughes in particular expressing doubt over the claim, given the finality surrounding CBP's liquidation of imports (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).