The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case brought by Nucor Corp. should not be considered in a separate CVD case led by Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. For starters, the remand results -- which saw Commerce decide not to treat a CVD respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier -- have not been sustained, but even if they were, the trade court is not bound by judgments of other CIT judges, the government said. Also, the analysis in the Nucor case deals with particular companies and is specific to that case (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00565).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision upholding President Donald Trump's imposition of Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products provides further evidence that exporter Oman Fasteners will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued. Filing a motion to take judicial notice at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, the exporter said that in light of the Federal Circuit's decision it will be required to pay the Section 232 duties on its steel nails entered after Feb. 8, 2020 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade erred by relying on information not presented to the Commerce Department in a scope case, misinterpreting the International Trade Commission's findings in the original injury proceeding and mischaracterizing statements in other ITC cases, appellant Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe's arguments supporting the CIT's analysis "are unpersuasive," since they ignore the plain language of the relevant antidumping duty order, the brief said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion rejected Meyer Corp.'s bid for first sale treatment of its cookware imports, with Judge Thomas Aquilino denying the importer's request for a retrial. The judge held firm on a prior judgment in the case -- before it was appealed to the Federal Circuit -- which held that, because the court doesn't know the extent to which parent company Meyer Holdings had the ability to influence the price paid for the goods sold between affiliates, the use of first sale was not supported.
The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to carry out expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 7 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S was invited to file the amicus brief by the Federal Circuit after it failed to appear regularly in the case. Taking the court up on its offer, the government claimed that the Commerce Department had preexisting authority for the regulation under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, though even if this preexisting structure did not exist, the URAA itself along with the Statement of Administrative Action's statements provide authority for expedited CVD reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion again called the Commerce Department's non-market economy policies into question, sending back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the fifth administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China. On remand, Commerce continued to find that AD respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. failed to show that it was not controlled by the Chinese state. Judge Richard Eaton said that since Commerce has not shown its policy of assigning mandatory respondents the one non-market economy rate to have either statutory or regulatory backing, the agency must reconsider how it legally hit Jilin with the China-wide rate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations had run out by the time the case was filed, and because the government has not established how Liu was connected to the allegedly fraudulent scheme, Liu argued in a Feb 7 brief at the Court of International Trade (U.S. vs. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).