The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Importers Wego and Galleher either waived or forfeited any arguments they may have against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this month, the government said the importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain Commerce's remand results in which it calculated the separate rate, waiving any claims against the remand results (Galleher Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).
Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, filed their opening brief on June 23 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest the Commerce Department's decision to exclude in-transit mattresses from the input data used to calculate quarterly ratios in an AD investigation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).
Importers, led by Simplified, asked the Court of International Trade on June 24 to reconsider its decision to stay the company's suit against the tariffs imposed on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Simplified said the stay order prevents it from raising its argument that the IEEPA suit actually belongs in a U.S. district court, and not CIT, while the government hasn't shown the "hardship necessary to justify a stay," the brief said (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).
The U.S. filed its opening brief on June 24 in its appeal of the Court of International Trade ruling vacating the executive orders implementing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that CIT got it wrong "at every turn." The government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the trade court "properly did not question whether IEEPA authorizes as a general matter," though the court improperly suggested that "giving effect to IEEPA’s text would create constitutional concerns, invoking the nondelegation doctrine" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions on June 25 called for future litigation to clarify whether the Commerce Department's interpretation of the "subassemblies" provision in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China comports with AD/CVD law.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Exporters led by Bioparques de Occidente agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico originally opened in 1996 but subject to a series of suspension agreements negotiated between the Commerce Department and the Mexican government. The case was previously stayed after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
The U.S. and importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America jointly stipulated settlement terms for the importer’s classification case June 20. They agreed that the epoxy resin used as a coating for some of Marubeni-Itochu’s products, pilings for a wall system, should be included in the valuation of products classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7301 rather than heading 7308 (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00149).
The Court of International Trade on June 24 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 2. Kelly previously remanded the investigation so the agency could redo its analysis of whether respondent Louis Dreyfus and its unnamed supplier, Supplier A, are affiliated or are partners (see 2411180024). Kelly said Commerce failed to consider whether Louis Drefyfus has the "ability to control Supplier A," and whether the supplier is "reliant" on the respondent. On remand, Commerce continued to find that Louis Dreyfus and Supplier A aren't affiliated, nor are they partners (see 2502180037). The agency said it's important to distinguish "exclusivity" from "reliance" in affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).