The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Steel Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review, the defendant-intervenor said in an Oct. 25 notice of appeal. The company will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade's March dismissal of a case seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China was correct because the importer properly revoked its statute of limitations waiver, Katana Racing said in an Oct. 24 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Court of International Trade is set to have an in-person oral argument on Oct. 26 about the U.S.'s submission of a "consent" motion for leave to add a document to the administrative record but which actually did not have the consent of the plaintiffs, led by Grupo Simec. Judge Stephen Vaden will preside over the hearing to determine whether consent was given to the motion by the plaintiffs (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping duties on steel threaded rod to strike pin anchors imported from China, Midwest Fastener said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Midwest Fastener v. U.S., CIT #21-00535). The complaint contests the denial by CBP of Midwest Fastener's protest concerning the assessment of antidumping duties on one entry of strike pin anchors imported from China through the Port of Chicago valued at nearly $17,000. At liquidation, CBP assessed AD at the rate of 206% under case number A-570-932, which covers steel threaded rod from China. Midwest Fastener claims the strike pin anchors do not fall within the scope of the case and were therefore incorrectly assessed. The company has asked the court to order the port director in Chicago to reliquidate the entry without the assessment of AD and to refund the duties assessed on the entry, plus interest.