The U.S.'s bid for more time to respond to importer Eteros Technologies USA's motion for judgment should be denied since the Department of Justice has not shown good cause for the extension, Eteros said in an Oct. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns CBP's seizure of Eteros' motor frame assemblies -- part of a marijuana and plant harvesting unit -- under the premise that the assemblies constitute "drug paraphernalia."
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China covering entries from 2017, in an Oct. 12 order. Commerce, as it has done many times before, applied adverse facts available relating to its inability to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program by the two mandatory respondents' U.S. customers. Judge Timothy Reif issued lengthy remand orders to Commerce, instructing the agency, for instance, to explain how one of the respondent's questionnaire statements showing its non-use of the program are unverifiable by describing Commerce's step-by-step methodology for verifying non-use.
An alleged transshipper in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation was allowed to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade, per an Oct. 7 order. Kingtom Aluminio was originally denied the right to intervene for failing to show a legally protectable interest in the case. Judge Richard Eaton changed his tune in the most recent order, now agreeing that the company has a protectable interest.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) challenges certain elements of the Commerce Department's third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan covering entries in 2018-19, in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade.
Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China, the Court of International Trade held in an Oct. 7 order. After conducting an analysis of the "(k)(2)" factors following an initial remand from CIT, which included comparing the physical characteristics, end uses, consumer expectations and methods of advertising for cupwheels and diamond sawblades, the Commerce Department held that the cupwheels could not be held in the scope of the AD order.
The Commerce Department was wrong to include dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 6 order, remanding the scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration. Seeing as there were no Thai manufacturers who even made line pipe at the time of the AD order, the ITC therefore never made an injury determination on line pipe from Thailand. This led Judge Stephen Vaden to hold that line pipes are excluded from the scope of the order.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A host of mattress companies in two Court of International Trade cases cited an Oct. 4 order from Judge Timothy Stanceu in their bid for an open-ended preliminary injunction against the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. The order said that the open-ended injunction was warranted since the plaintiff in that case showed a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued in that way (see 2108230059). The U.S. had opposed the open-ended injunction, instead pushing for the injunction to merely run until the end of the first administrative review. The U.S. echoed this opposition in the two cases over the AD mattress order, arguing that if needed the injunction could be extended beyond the end of the first administrative review.