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).
Replying to U.S. opposition to its motion for judgment, shopping bag exporter Ditar said June 19 that the government still hasn’t addressed substantial evidence that Ditar’s home market sales had been made at “a more remote and significantly different level of trade” than its U.S. sales, justifying an adjustment in an antidumping duty investigation on Colombian paper shopping bags (Ditar v. United States, CIT # 24-00130).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act should be upheld as a valid exercise of Section 338, the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute argued in a June 24 amicus brief af the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Claiming that an executive order can be upheld under a different statute than the statute originally claimed by the president, the institute said the IEEPA tariffs "fit Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 like a glove" (V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 23 upheld a jury's determination that importer Sigma Corp. is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its imports were subject to antidumping duties. Judges Michelle Friedland and Mark Bennett said no errors of law were made against Sigma and that the federal district court, not the Court of International Trade, had jurisdiction in the case (Island Industries v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty petitioner The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile challenged the Commerce Department's AD investigation on ceramic tile from India, arguing that the agency erred in its collapsing and affiliation analyses regarding the two mandatory respondents. The result of the investigation was a zero percent margin for the respondents, Antiqa Minerals and Win-Tel Ceramics (The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile v. United States, CIT # 25-00095).