The Court of International Trade will hold a hearing in a conflict-of-interest case on the motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from participating in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, according to the text-only order on Nov. 28. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., allege that Pickard, ARC's former counsel, and Buchanan committed an ethical violation by using ARC's information against it in the AD/CVD proceedings on freight rail couplers from China and Mexico (see 2211250007). ARC had a similar case recently dismissed from the trade court seeking to bar Pickard and Buchanan from the International Trade Commission proceedings (see 2211150033). The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction -- something ARC tried to remedy in the Commerce case with an amended complaint (Amsted Rail v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 28 blocked imports of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. In an opinion that cited renowned conservationist Rachel Carson, Judge Gary Katzmann found plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing two claims in the case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, warranting the injunction. The injunction covers snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from the New Zealand set-net and trawl fisheries.
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 28 opinion sent back parts and upheld parts of CBP's evasion finding under the Enforce and Protect Act that Aspects Furniture International (AFI) evaded antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that CBP acted improperly by retroactively covering entries made before the EAPA statute came into force, including in the EAPA investigation of merchandise found by the Commerce Department in a scope ruling to not be covered by the order and failing "to provide sufficient public summaries of confidential documents on the administrative record." However, the judge ruled CBP did not deprive AFI of due process by imposing interim measures before the importer had a chance to respond to the evasion allegation and did not illegally combine the EAPA investigation with a regulatory audit.
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to uphold the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to root out "masked" dumping, given a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Nov. 21 reply brief. Responding to the U.S.'s opposition to the rehearing bid, SeAH said that since the Federal Circuit called the use of the Cohen's d test into question in Stupp Corp. v. U.S., the trade court needs to reconsider its ruling made before the CAFC decision (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand to consider whether there is enough evidence to verify claims that countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the U.S. said in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Senmao gave Commerce non-use declarations for all of its U.S. customers. Seeing as the trade court has in past decisions remanded CVD cases to consider whether information such as these declarations may be enough to verify non-use, the agency requested the chance to review this information (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
A voluntary remand is not needed in a case concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that allegedly have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, plaintiffs Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society argued in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. NOAA's call for a voluntary remand "is a red herring" and would let the agency "avoid the repercussions of its decision to not rule on the" New Zealand government's 2021 comparability findings application by the end of the year -- a move that delays the consideration of new information over the Maui dolphin, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 28 opinion blocked imports of snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the plaintiffs in a case seeking a ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have allegedly caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin are likely to succeed on two of their claims.
The Court of International Trade erred by upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Commerce's original scope ruling including dual-stenciled pipe was backed by evidence since the pipe met the physical characteristics laid out in the scope of the order "and was made to an industrial specification for standard pipe" (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: