The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in using an allocation method for Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's (SMPC) certification expenses that covered the whole period of review, SMPC said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By doing so, Commerce violated its own practice of using the most detailed transaction-specific expense data and distorted the data, the exporter said (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT #22-00107).
The government has no cause of action to pursue counterclaims once liquidation is finalized, and the challenge of a denied protest at the Court of International Trade does not reopen the window for reliquidation at higher duty rates, Cyber Power Systems said in an April 5 brief. The brief is in support of a previous motion to dismiss a counterclaim by the government seeking to reclassify its imported cables from China at a higher duty rate (see 2203180042) (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00200).
Section 232 steel tariffs paid by importer North American Interpipe should be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping proceeding, the importer, along with its Ukrainian manufacturer, argued in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Taking a novel approach to this position -- which has been routinely defeated at CIT -- Interpipe said the national security tariffs should be deducted due to their tentative nature given that a number of exclusion requests were retroactively granted in a separate CIT case challenging the exclusion denials (Interpipe Ukraine v. U.S., CIT #22-00066).
The Commerce Department had to draw a line somewhere, and its use of a test to distinguish the production activities of producers and fabricators to determine industry support in antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India is in line with the law and prior court precedent, DOJ said in a reply brief filed April 6 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit signaled during an April 6 oral argument that whether a country is a non-market economy would not stand as a criterion in determining whether to grant an import first sale valuation. Responding to arguments from John Peterson, counsel for importer and plaintiff Meyer Corp. and Beverly Farrell of DOJ, three Federal Circuit judges -- Judge Todd Hughes in particular -- said that it was unlikely the government would succeed in defending the use of this criterion in customs law, as non-market economy principle is reserved for trade remedy laws (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Domestic U.S. cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) producer SSAB Enterprises should not be allowed to intervene in exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.'s countervailing duty challenge, the exporter told the Court of International Trade in an April 5 brief. Since SSAB did not submit any factual information or written arguments to the Commerce Department during the relevant CVD proceeding, SSAB is not an "interested party" with standing to intervene in the case, Dongkuk said (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00032).
The Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to antidumping duty adminstrative review respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the agency failed to notify the respondent that there was a deficiency in its responses, Meihua said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of using AFA, Commerce hit Meihua with a 154.07% dumping margin -- a rate dubbed "draconian" by the plaintiffs (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00069).
Though the Court of International Trade ruled April 1 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it failed in its final tariff notices to publicly connect the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 comments it received with the tariff decisions it made (see 2204010061), the three-judge panel absolved the agency of APA wrongdoing amid plaintiffs’ allegations it ran sloppy rulemakings.