The Commerce Department properly included Vandewater International's steel branch outlets under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Court of International Trade held in a Sept. 8 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon found that while the plaintiffs, led by Vandewater, showed that information on the record could back a finding that their outlets could be excluded from the scope of the order, he could not agree that Commerce acted unreasonably in reaching the opposing conclusion using each of the (k)(2) factors.
A group of domestic steel manufacturers doesn't have the right to intervene in a spate of challenges to denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Sept. 8 opinion. Ruling against the Court of International Trade's opinion that the would-be intervenors did not establish standing, Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes ultimately found that the interveners nevertheless failed to identify a legally protectable interest to qualify as intervenors under the trade court's rules.
International trade attorney Brian McGrath left the employment of Crowell & Moring, the firm confirmed in a notice of withdrawal filed at the Court of International Trade. McGrath will head to work at Google after departing Crowell, where he will do export controls and sanctions work for the tech giant, John Brew, partner at Crowell, told Trade Law Daily. McGrath began working at Crowell in 2018, serving as an associate in the International Trade Group, focusing on compliance with U.S. sanctions, export controls and anti-boycott regimes, the firm said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 order consolidated four cases contesting the International Trade Commission's decision that led to the antidumping duty order on raw honey from Vietnam. The four nearly identical cases argue that, contrary to the ITC's findings, the Vietnamese import volume hasn't jumped enough to undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order, such as to require a critical circumstances determination (see 2208040065). In the proceeding, the commissioners ruled that imports subject to the affirmative critical circumstances finding are likely to seriously undercut the remedial effect of the AD order on Vietnam, so honey from Vietnam was subject to 90 more days of retroactively imposed duties. The plaintiffs, all represented by Gregory Husisian of Foley & Lardner, contested the decision at the trade court (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00188).
A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 8 opinion denied a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in six cases challenging denied exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judges Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling that the domestic producers did not have a legally protectable interest in the case, though they parted from the trade court's position in ruling that the manufacturers established standing to intervene. While they had standing, the lack of a legally protectable interest stunted their bid to join the litigation. Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the majority opinion, ruling the manufacturers have clear economic interests in the tariff exclusion requests, establishing their right to intervene.
The Commerce Department properly stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions on remand at the Court of International, the agency argued in a Sept. 6 brief filed to the Court of International Trade. During the remand, Commerce took a new agency action by finding that the questionnaire responses constituted verification -- a move it says was not only legal but justified since the antidumping duty respondent, Shakti Forge Industries, gave an amount of information that typically exceeds that found in other investigations, and the information corroborated and verified information that Shakti previously submitted (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 8 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a scope case on the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China originally brought by Vandewater International. Following an initial decision from Judge Leo Gordon, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems fall under the scope of the AD order using an analysis of the (k)(2) criteria. In the newest opinion, Gordon said despite the plaintiffs' arguments that show the record could back a finding that the outlets are excluded from the order, the court cannot find that Commerce acted unreasonably in its conclusion using the (k)(2) factors.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: