Court of International Trade activity

There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.

Lawyers for LG Electronics' bid to overturn the International Trade Commission's restrictions on their participation in a solar safeguard review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the ITC argued in an Oct. 4 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Even if CIT had jurisdiction, the case is premature since there has been no "justiciable final agency action," the brief said.

The Court of International Trade allowed a company accused of transshipping aluminum extrusions from China in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to participate in a case over the evasion finding, in an Oct. 7 order. Having previously ruled that the alleged transshipper, Kingtom Aluminio, could not intervene in the case for lack of a legally protectable interest in the case, Judge Richard Eaton ruled that Kingtom's contractual arrangements provide an interest in the transaction at issue that has a direct relationship to the litigation and the existing parties don't adequately represent Kingtom's interests.

Only district courts, not the Court of International Trade, have the jurisdiction to hear cases over property seized by CBP, CIT said in an Oct. 7 order. Dismissing a case brought by Root Sciences over its seized "drug paraphernalia," Judge Gary Katzmann said that since the seized goods were never deemed excluded, there was no protestable action by CBP, precluding jurisdiction at CIT. Katzmann also held that questions about CBP's lack of notice to Root about the seizure should be decided by district courts and not CIT.

The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 6 on AD/CV duty proceedings:

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel (FSS) from Canada, Chile and Mexico did not harm the domestic industry, in a Sept. 22 opinion made public on Oct. 5.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel (AGIS) circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from China via the United Arab Emirates, in a Sept. 24 ruling made public on Oct. 4.

Moroccan exporter OCP S.A. was granted an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of its phosphate fertilizers, in an Oct. 4 order from the Court of International Trade. After scrapping with the Department of Justice over the end date of the injunction, OCP eventually won out after proving that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm stemming from the automatic liquidation of the entries that could occur starting at the top of next year.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 6 stuck down a Commerce Department scope ruling that found dual-stenciled pipe is covered by the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, remanding the ruling back to Commerce for further consideration. The plaintiff, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, argued that Commerce ignored overwhelming evidence that dual-stenciled line pipe was intentionally excluded from the ITC's injury determination underlying the AD order. Judge Stephen Vaden found that no Thai manufacturer made dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe at the time of the AD order, so it couldn't have been included in the scope of the order.