Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 5 in a case from importer Southern Cross Seafoods pertaining to a U.S. move to ban imports of Patagonian toothish, referred to as Chilean sea bass, from the South Georgia fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Per a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until Oct. 10 to review any potentially confidential information. The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which has been fully briefed, indicating that the opinion addresses this question, though the docket doesn't indicate which way the judge ruled (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
Aluminum extrusions from 14 more countries -- as well as additional types of aluminum extrusions from China -- face the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties after a U.S. producer coalition and a labor union filed petitions for new AD/CVD investigations with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission on Oct. 4.
The U.S. asked for an extended stay in a customs penalty suit against Greenlight Organic and its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh given that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York opened a criminal investigation on the evidence recovered during a search of Aulakh's residence. Filing a status report in the Court of International Trade, the government said the case should be stayed until Jan. 2, after which the U.S. will file another status report "updating the Court on whether a continued stay is needed" (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).
The Commerce Department's failure to use a weighted average to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d test coefficient in an antidumping duty case remand was contrary to the underlying academic literature and produced unreasonable results, a group of AD respondents said in their Oct. 2 comments to the Court of International Trade. The respondents argued that Commerce failed to explain its choice in the face of its own practice and judicial precedent and have asked the court to remand the case to Commerce with instructions to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d equation either by weight averaging the standard deviations of the test group and the comparison group or by relying on the standard deviation of the entire population (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 15-00213).
The Commerce Department made multiple errors when it miscalculated benchmark data and its use of adverse inferences in a countervailing duty review on multilayered wood flooring from China, Chinese wood flooring exporters and consolidated plaintiffs Fine Furniture (Shanghai) and Double F said in an Sept. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief raised similar points to one filed by respondent Baroque Timber Industries two weeks earlier (see 2309180042) (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00210).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's method for picking an adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple as part of the sixth review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton partially vacated his previous opinion in the case following oral argument with the parties, finding that Commerce was in fact not barred from using mandatory Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s "highest transaction-specific dumping margin" as Sino-Maple's AFA rate.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade approved increased transcript fee rates effective Oct. 1. A transcript to be delivered within 30 days after receiving an order now costs $4 a page, while a 14-day transcript costs $4.70 a page. A seven-day transcript is $5.35 a page, a three-day transcript is $6 a page, a next-day transcript is $6.70 a page, and a two-hour transcript is $8 a page. The first copy costs range from $1 to $1.35, while each additional copy to the same party ranges from $0.70 to $1. Real-time transcripts, which are unedited and delivered electronically during a proceeding or immediately following adjournment, cost $3.40 per page for one feed, $2.35 per page for two to four feeds or $1.65 per page for five or more feeds. The price hikes were authorized by the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: