The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case challenging several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, which was subject to suspension agreements, since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already ruled on the large remaining questions in the case, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by Bioparques de Occidente, have not conformed to the Federal Circuit opinion, and their claims are "jurisdictionally defective," the brief said (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00204).
There is no basis for the Court of International Trade to 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 or its inclusion of respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s inventory valuation losses in its general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation, the U.S. said. Replying to SeAH's motion for rehearing at CIT, the government argued that since Commerce has found on remand in the key Stupp Corp. v. U.S. case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit called into question the use of the Cohen's d test that the agency properly used the test, there are no grounds to contest CIT's move to uphold the DPA (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).
CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' late-filed submission in an antidumping duty review while giving itself a far greater delay, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 28 opinion. Ajmal claimed that COVID-19-related difficulties caused the less-than-two-hour delay. While Judge Jane Restani ruled that it could be considered reasonable for Commerce to have rejected the filing on these grounds, the judge said that the agency abused its discretion by ignoring its own actions, which caused a far more considerable delay in the proceeding.
Taylor Bates, former judicial law clerk at the Court of International Trade, joined CBP as an attorney in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel with the international trade litigation team, Bates announced on LinkedIn. At CBP, Bates will work on matters concerning the treatment of imports under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and alleged violations of import laws and regulations. Aside from clerking for the trade court, Bates also carried out a judicial internship at CIT under Judge Claire Kelly. She graduated in 2021 from the Brooklyn Law School.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A company's information shared with counsel jointly representing another firm is not treated as confidential and "cannot serve as a basis for a conflict claim," counsel for defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) cannot claim that the coalition's counsel -- led by Daniel Pickard of Buchanan Ingersoll -- violated the D.C. Bar's rules of ethics, Pickard said (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
CBP cannot collect on a bond due 14 years ago by claiming a breach occurred only when CBP demanded payment through the agency's own error, Aegis Security Insurance Company said in an Oct. 21 response brief and request for dismissal at the Court of International Trade (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).