Anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject the government's request for a two-month delay in filing a reply brief in the group's suit seeking CBP to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. IRAdvocates claimed that every "major delay in CBP doing its statutory duty to ban the importation of cocoa harvested by child slaves condemns thousands of children to a continuation of the horrible condition they must endure" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 5 let the Commerce Department add an analysis memorandum from a previous antidumping proceeding to the administrative record of an anti-circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe. Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat as "pedantic," and said the memo should be part of the record because it was referenced by both Commerce and respondent SeAH Steel VINA Corp.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 questioned importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) and the government regarding the tariff classification of frozen fruit mixtures. Judge Todd Hughes led the bulk of the questioning, pushing Nature's Touch on how to classify the goods if the court finds that the mixtures aren't food preparations, as claimed by the company, and how they should be classified instead under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811, which covers certain frozen fruit (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department improperly used a period of review-wide allocation methodology for exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's certification expenses, Sahamitr argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The company said it followed Commerce's instructions throughout the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand only for the agency to find that its methodology to be "distortive" (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).
The International Trade Commission regulation requiring a party to file an entry of appearance in order to establish standing to sue a commission decision before the Court of International Trade is lawful and in line with the relevant statute, the U.S. said. Replying to importer Pay Less Here's bid to keep its case on the ITC's critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma alive, the government said Pay Less doesn't have standing since it failed to file an entry of appearance (Pay Less Here v. United States, CIT # 24-00152).
The Commerce Department properly picked the benchmark data for two subsidy programs received by respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials in the 2017-18 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 3.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An automobile parts exporter’s financial statements aren’t representative of exporter Your Standing International’s home market steel nail sales, Your Standing said Nov. 29 in support of its August motion for judgment (see 2408270046) (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a confidential decision on Dec. 2 on the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. Previously, the judge remanded part of Commerce's decision to initiate the investigation, holding that the agency hadn't proven that the petition had at least 50% support from the domestic industry (see 2403220033). Kelly was concerned that some U.S. producers that both make and finish OCTGs may have accidentally been counted twice. On remand, Commerce said it found no evidence of double-counting (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).