The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies USA an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on March 20 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying the exporter had failed to notify a USMCA panel of its lawsuit (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
Petitioner United Steel, Paper, and Forestry said March 24 that the U.S. was wrongly seeking to narrow the scope of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department "violated its statutory obligations" to gain adequate support to launch an antidumping duty investigation, importers led by Tenaris Bay City argued in their March 24 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tenaris Bay said Commerce failed to examine "intermingled" oil country tubular goods mill and processor production data and proxy shipment information used "in lieu of missing production data" provided by the petitioners "to confirm its accuracy and adequacy contrary to its statutory obligation" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case. The judge held that the harms suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of CBP's actions "are not time-sensitive harms that will become irremediable in the near future," that the harms suffered are not "extraordinary" and that it's not clear that a speedy end of the case serves the public interest.
The Court of International Trade granted three wildlife advocacy groups' voluntary dismissal of a case seeking an import ban on fisheries from nine countries after the groups reached a settlement with the U.S. government. Judge Gary Katzmann dropped the case, though he retained jurisdiction over the matter to oversee implementation of the settlement, at the parties' request.
The Court of International Trade on March 21 instructed attorneys using artificial intelligence to be "mindful of any individual chambers procedures or orders" relating to protections for business proprietary information. The court said attorneys also should keep in mind the "obligations of Rule 11 regarding attorneys' representations to the Court."
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. responded March 20 to surety company Aegis Security Insurance’s motion for judgment (see 2501310069). It said that CBP hadn’t intended to wait eight years before seeking outstanding duties in 2016, but provided several arguments as to why the duties still must be paid (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance, CIT # 22-00327).