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).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 26 order allowed Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing, one of the plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation, to withdraw its motion to transfer interest in the case to Hitachi Astemo Americas. Hitachi Astemo Americas said that it wanted to withdraw the motion so it could amend its complaint and other relevant documents to reflect its merger with Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the companies said in their original motion to transfer interest (see 2210140044) (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
Steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp.over the Commerce Department's denial of an exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, DOJ said in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settled this issue in its California Steel Indus. v. U.S. decision (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
CBP did not violate an importer's due process rights by requiring protests for retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties on imported pressure switches, the government said in an Oct. 25 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124). The brief is in support of DOJ's July motion for dismissal claiming lack of jurisdiction and timeliness.
ITC Can't Claim Exhaustion Defense Given Release of BPI, Plaintiffs Argue in Row Over Former Counsel
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Steel Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review, the defendant-intervenor said in an Oct. 25 notice of appeal. The company will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade's March dismissal of a case seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China was correct because the importer properly revoked its statute of limitations waiver, Katana Racing said in an Oct. 24 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).