The Commerce Department properly decided not to consider off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty administrative review, DOJ said in a March 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to a motion for judgment from petitioner Nucor Corporation, DOJ said that Nucor's arguments merely dispute how Commerce weighed the evidence alleging that the provision of off-peak electricity for LTAR was a countervailable subsidy (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00182).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade stayed the deadline for DOJ's response to an amicus brief filed by the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a lawsuit on a seized shipment of palm oil over forced labor concerns. The palm oil shipment was entered by importer Virtus Nutrition and was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made in Malaysia by forced labor (Virtus Nutrition v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
The Court of International Trade should not permit the U.S. to add an entire customs broker license exam to the record of a case contesting the results of one individual's exam results, counsel for Byungmin Chae argued in a March 7 reply brief. There are no "extraordinary reasons" that warrant the inclusion of the entire 80-question exam, as only five questions are being contested, Chae said (Byungmin Chae v. Secretary of The Treasury, CIT #20-00316).
A Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter, along with its affiliates, filed for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade, arguing the trade court failed to address the company's alternative arguments on a host of issues. The issues, which include claims about the specificity of an alleged benefit and whether certain input suppliers are government entities, are fully briefed and "ripe for decision," the motion for rehearing said (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT #16-00009).
A Canadian exporter's challenge of antidumping cash deposit instructions should be dismissed since the company can obtain a review of the cash deposit rate through an already initiated USMCA panel review, DOJ said in a March 4 brief. What the exporter, J.D. Irving, really wants is to not pay current cash deposits at the current rate, DOJ told the Court of International Trade. Even if the court finds it does have jurisdiction over the cash deposit instructions, the case still should be dismissed since the payment of cash deposits doesn't establish standing since it isn't an injury, DOJ said (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are outside the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, DOJ said in a March 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Reflection's window wall systems aren't dependent on other systems and are inserted between slabs to cover an aperture from floor to ceiling, making the goods distinct from curtain wall units and thus "finished goods kits" that qualify for the finished goods kits scope exclusion (Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT #21-00253).
Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s antidumping duty case is an "excellent candidate for resolution via mediation," it told the Court of International Trade in a March 4 motion. Nagase's challenges the Commerce Department's calculation of its cost of production and an alleged error in the assessment rate in Commerce's liquidation instructions to CBP under the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
CIT Ruling Over Alleged Untimely Filed Protests Leads to 'Nonsensical' Practice, Importer Tells CAFC
The Court of International Trade erred when it found that importer Strategic Import Supply's protests were untimely filed, the tire importer said in its March 4 opening argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In fact, SIS should not have had to file the protest in the first place, since the U.S. should have provided the necessary refunds for overpaid countervailing duties without any other filings from SIS, the company said. The result of the trade court's ruling is a practice both "nonsensical" and unsupported by the statute's language (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).