Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett encouraged parties in an antidumping duty case to involve their junior lawyers in an oral argument proceeding set for Aug. 15. Submitting a letter to the litigants in a suit on the AD investigation on raw honey from India, Barnett said the Federal Bar Council has suggested judges should modify their practice rules to let junior lawyers "take a more active role in oral arguments" (American Honey Producers Association v. United States, CIT # 22-00195).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should stay a case concerning an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement on tomatoes from Mexico while two related cases are being considered at the lower court, Mexican exporter Bioparques de Occidente said in an Aug. 8 motion to stay (Bioparques de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).
Members of the trade bar interested in joining the Court of International Trade's Rules Advisory Committee should submit letters expressing that interest by Sept. 8, the court announced. The committee considers the court's rules and makes recommendations about potential changes in line with the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutes impacting the Court’s jurisdiction, and other developments that may affect the work of the Court." The group meets four times a year, alternating between New York City and Washington, D.C., and also meets in smaller groups as needed.
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Parties in a suit over the Commerce Department's expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber disagreed on whether the Court of International Trade should tell Commerce to exclude four Canadian exporters from the CVD order following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying the agency has the authority to conduct the review. In a joint status report filed Aug. 7, the Canadian parties in the case, which include the Canadian government, said the court should tell Commerce to exclude the companies and tell CBP to stop collecting CVD cash deposits, while the petitioner said a joint status report is not the correct venue for the request (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).
CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).
Commerce did not have the right to institute an administrative review of an antidumping duty case while the underlying order was provisionally revoked, Goodluck India said during an Aug. 1 oral argument at the Court of International Trade. In response to questions from Judge Gary Katzmann, the central issue in the suit shifted from whether Commerce lawfully ordered liquidation at a rate vacated at the time of entry to whether the agency had the right to start a review of Goodluck while the AD order was provisionally revoked, pending appeal (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).
The Commerce Department stuck by its position that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific and can be countervailed as part of the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade Aug. 7, Commerce said that because the German government, through legislation, limited access to the program's relief to a "group" of enterprises, the eligibility criteria are vertical and satisfy the de jure specificity standard laid out in the statute (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The Commerce Department stuck by its benchmark picks for the land program and the aluminum plate, sheet and strip program in a suit on the 2016-17 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 4, Commerce said Trade Data Monitor data on Harmonized System subheading 7606.12 was properly used as the benchmark for the aluminum plate program, and that a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis (CBRE) report on Thailand was the proper land benchmark (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00133).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: