The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order on Dec. 22 gave plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation more time to file their reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, now have until Feb. 12 to file their reply after counsel for the companies said they needed more time due to their "significant additional client responsibilities and obligations that substantially interfere with their ability to file the reply brief by the current deadline" (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Antidumping duty petitioner the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group argued in a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department "improperly calculated" exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's duty drawback adjustment (The Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00251).
The Court of International Trade has made changes to its fee schedule that will take effect Jan. 22, the court announced. The court's attorney admission fee (the original admission of an attorney to practice) will now be $199, up from $88, while applications to appear pro hac vice, which previously were free, will now cost $75. Renewal of admission registrations will be due every five years, along with a $75 fee, up from $50. Duplicate certificates of admission or certificates of good standing will cost $45, up from $20. Additionally, U.S. government attorneys requesting a certificate of their admission to the trade bar will now pay $45 for the certificate to be printed, instead of $88. Because they can't be charged a fee for admission to practice before CIT, the certificates aren't automatically generated. The fee changes were approved Dec. 12.
The nominations to fill two judicial vacancies at the Court of International Trade were returned to President Joe Biden after the full Senate chamber didn't move to approve the two nominees within the calendar year. The nominations, Lisa Wang, assistant secretary of commerce for enforcement and compliance, and Joseph Laroski, partner at Schagrin Associates, were approved by the Judiciary Committee in September with votes of 12-9 and 18-3, respectively (see 2309140054). Wang faced greater scrutiny from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, being subjected to questions about comments she made as an undergraduate student regarding "liberal hypocrisy," a term used by a Republican senator in characterizing a specifc comment he questioned (see 2307270043). Wang's and Laroski's nominations sat untouched following their approval from the Judiciary Committee. Biden will have the opportunity to renew their nominations in the new year.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case in which the agency was told to verify a Thai mattress importer's data "insofar as the Department relied upon that data." Judge M. Miller Baker noted because the importer, Saffron Living Co., withdrew from the case and no remaining party opposes the remand results, the court will uphold the results and the associated 763.28% antidumping duty rate for Saffron.
The International Trade Commission isn't required to rule specifically on underselling in injury investigations -- it only needs to consider it, the Court of International Trade said last week. CIT also said overselling of a product by importers does not necessarily mean domestic producers’ prices haven't been impacted.
Plaintiffs in the massive ongoing Section 301 litigation "ignore" the president's role in imposing the China tariffs, the U.S. said last week, arguing that the thousands of companies leading the case would have the court impose an improper standard of review (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. failed to raise arguments on the surrogate value of bituminous coal in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 21. Judge Mark Barnett said that despite Jilin Bright's argument, "this case fits squarely into the classic administrative exhaustion paradigm."