The Commerce Department did not properly conduct its "primarily dedicated" analysis when it found that Nur Gemicilik ve Tic is a cross-owned input supplier of plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s position that Nur is a cross-owned input supplier since scrap is used in the production of subject merchandise and all of Nur's scrap generation was sold to Kaptan, thus making it "primarily dedicated" to the downstream product, cuts against the words of the countervailing duty preamble and Commerce's own precedent, Kaptan said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00565).
The Court of International Trade should stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, given the former counsel's alleged "betrayal," the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By not blocking the release of the BPI, the ITC is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights, the brief said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit posted the cases it will hear when it sits in Philadelphia as part of its November session, the court announced Oct. 14. The court will hear cases Nov. 1 and 2 at the law schools of Villanova University, Drexel University, the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University. On Nov. 3, the court will seat two panels at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, one panel in ceremonial courtroom, the other in courtroom 6A.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Wire rod importer Kiswire asked the Court of International Trade to consolidate two cases, in an Oct. 14 motion. Similar facts "surround all of the entries" and the two complaints stem from the same agency decision on similar protests, Kiswire said. Both complaints challenge the denial of protests seeking antidumping duty refunds on wire rod from South Korea (see 2210130066). Kiswire said that CBP refused to refund the cash deposits and asserted that the entries were deemed liquidated at a date that would make the protests untimely filed. The cases proposed for consolidation present identical counts and promote "economy of judicial resources" and "avoid duplication of effort" if consolidated, Kiswire said. The government has indicated it doesn't consent to consolidation at this time and intends to file a response to the motion, Kiswire said (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00181; Kiswire Inc. and Kiswire Pine Bluff Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00285).
The U.S. in an Oct. 13 motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked for 30 more days to file an amicus brief in a case over whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The U.S. originally failed to appear in the case, leading to the appellate court inviting the government to file an amicus brief and address whether Commerce has the authority to engage in expedited CVD reviews (see 2206100045) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).
The Court of International Trade should transfer interest in a case contesting the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs filed by Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing to Hitachi Astemo Americas, counsel for Hitachi Astemo Americas said in a motion for transfer of interest. The U.S. consented to the transfer. Both Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's and Hitachi Astemo America's cases are under the massive Section 301 litigation. 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 motion said (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
The National Marine Fisheries Service illegally denied importer Southern Cross Seafood's application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, Southern Cross argued in an Oct. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. NMFS said it could not permit the imports given the lack of a Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention (CAMLR) conservation measure for the area in the Atlantic Ocean north of Antarctica where the fish are harvested. Southern Cross argued that the Commission for the CAMLR does not prohibit fishing for the sea bass there in the absence of a conservation measure (Southern Cross Seafoods v. U.S., CIT #22-00299).
The Court of International Trade must dismiss a case accusing the importer and U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, Wanxiang America Corp., of negligence by making false statements and omissions on its entries of wheel hub assemblies, radial ball and tapered roller bearings, and universal joints and their parts, WXA argued in an Oct. 12 motion.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: