DOJ’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using a late discovery production in any subsequent proceedings, or alternatively to reopen discovery, is just an “illusory claim” because no new information has actually surfaced, the exporter argued Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 said importer Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. didn't need a protest to file suit at the trade court for its entries that were erroneously deemed liquidated while liquidation was suspended. Judge Timothy Reif said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires the that entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries.
The following trade-related lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade asked parties in nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's circumvention investigation on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam for a briefing on whether a test case should be designated. In a Jan. 19 order, Judge M. Miller Baker bifurcated the motion for summary judgment procedure for a joint status report and proposed briefing schedule. All parties were asked to submit a joint status report no later than Feb. 9 to answer the question on consolidation (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00221, -00222, -00223, -00224, -00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229).
A German forged steel fluid end block exporter Jan. 22 for the most part supported the U.S. position in a remand redetermination that the Commerce Department couldn't make PMS adjustments for costs of production in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. It argued, however, that the department failed to address illegitimate PMS adjustments for two inputs for comparisons based on constructed value (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00077).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).
The Commerce Department on Jan. 24 dropped exporter Hyundai Steel Co.'s countervailing duty rate to a de minimis mark on remand in a suit contesting the rate applicable to Hyundai's usage rights for the North Incheon Harbor in South Korea. The agency said at the Court of International Trade that it considered the exporter's "construction costs in the benefit calculation," though it disagreed that the construction costs should be considered at all (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00304).
CBP, on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversed its finding that importers Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurment Group's imported carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings evaded the antidumping duty order on the pipe fittings from China (Norca Industrial v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).
The U.S. said Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade that it was seeking more than $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties from German company Koehler Oberkirch, formerly known as Papierfabrik August Koehler (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).