The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order instructed importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, to address "whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a protest if the basis for the denial" is that CBP was "simply following" the Commerce Department's instructions (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).
Antidumping duty petitioner American HFC Coalition took to the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's decision not to use Mexico as the primary surrogate nation in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends from China (The American HFC Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00071).
The Court of International Trade on May 8 remanded the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and its hedging practices due to the agency's failure to address the issues during the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce failed to address one of Assan's arguments regarding its raw material costs administratively. He also said the agency's post hoc rationalizations regarding the company's hedging revenues don't square with its treatment of the revenues during the investigation. The judge sustained Commerce's treatment of both Assan's late fees as part of a duty drawback adjustment and of management fees paid by Assan's affiliated U.S. reseller. The court also granted Commerce's voluntary remand request regarding the denominator of the duty drawback adjustment.
The Court of International Trade May 3 dismissed the final charge remaining in a 2002 fraud case brought by the U.S. against an importer, Lee Hunt International, and a few of its sureties, including Frontier Insurance Co. (U.S. v. Lee-Hunt International, Inc., CIT # 02-00816).
The Court of International Trade on May 3 entered judgment for importer Fraserview Remanufacturing after CBP corrected the liquidation status of the company's entries. In January, the trade court said Fraserview didn't need a protest to file suit at the court for entries that were erroneously deemed liquidated while liquidation was suspended (see 2401250039) (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00244).
Importer van Gelder on May 3 moved to set aside the Court of International Trade's dismissal of its case for failure to prosecute, arguing that its counsel "overlooked -- by virtue of a calendaring mistake" -- the new deadline for the case after it was extended on the customs case management calendar (van Gelder v. U.S., CIT # 21-00160).
The U.S. on May 3 defended its claim that anti-forced labor nonprofit International Rights Advocates doesn't have standing to sue CBP over its inaction in responding to a petition alleging cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is made with forced child labor. Filing a brief in support of its motion to dismiss the suit, the government argued that IRAdvocates can't show injury-in-fact from CBP's purported inaction, and that the Court of International Trade can't compel discretionary law enforcement action in the form of a withhold release order (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
A Spanish olive growers industry group, Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa, along with Agro Sevilla Aceitunas and Angel Camacho Alimentacion, brought suit at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's finding that demand for the "prior stage product" is "substantially dependent" on demand for the "latter stage product," in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT # 24-00078).
In a May 1 complaint, a Malaysian exporter of utility scale wind towers took issue with several decisions made by the Commerce Department in a 2021-2022 countervailing duty administrative review, including its refusal to grant an entered value adjustment (EVA) and its choice of surrogate market (CS Wind Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00079).