The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 lifted a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case following its decision in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. case. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). The present case concerns an EAPA investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India and was stayed pending the resolution of Royal Brush, given the overlap in the due process claims (see 2310170034). The U.S. is now attempting to distinguish its present situation from Royal Brush, arguing that the Federal Circuit's recent decision is irrelevant since "the facts here are materially different" seeing as liquidation became final in the present spat given that the importer didn't appeal its denied protest at CBP (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
Colony Gums and Marine Hydrocolloids evaded an antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, CBP said in the final determination of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation. The agency said it found substantial evidence that the importers had transshipped Chinese-origin xanthan gum through India, necessitating the imposition of interim measures.
A Chinese brick exporter alleged Dec. 4 at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department is illegally expanding the scope of its antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese-imported magnesia carbon bricks (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
CBP's failure to seek clarification from the Commerce Department on whether importer Vanguard Trading Co.'s surface products were subject to the antidumping duty order on quartz surface products from China as part of an AD evasion case was "arbitrary and capricious," Vanguard told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 complaint (Vanguard Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00253).
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.
The government's request for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to provide the parties with access to confidential business information is a "hollow" one since the parties have already gained access to this information via a judicial protective order at the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Phoenix Metal Co. said. Opposing the voluntary remand request from the U.S., Phoenix said the court should further explain CBP's decision to reject any information deemed to be "new factual information" (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
The Court of International Trade should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).
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.
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigation on whether Texas United Chemical Company and TBC-Brinadd evaded an antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. The agency said it found reasonable suspicion existed that the importers had transshipped Chinese-origin xanthan gum through Turkey, necessitating the imposition of interim measures.
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).