Appellant and importer Smith-Cooper International asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 3,000 more words in its reply brief as part of a suit on scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets. SCI said appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S. consented to the request and that good cause exists to allow the company to use more words given the "voluminous nature of the Government’s response brief, covering numerous procedural issues and questions of law and fact." In its reply brief, the government most recently argued that SCI relies too much on industry terms to argue that the steel branch outlets in question are not butt-welded and aren't subject to the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2304240058) (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Commerce Department illegally found that upholstered furniture imported by Amini Innovation Corp. was subject to the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, the company argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. Amini said that its furniture, sold as different collections under its AICO brand differ from the in-scope furniture "in terms of physical characteristics, expectations of ultimate purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and the manner in which they were advertised" (Amini Innovation Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00090).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again rejected the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers' bid to redact 180 unique words in its reply brief in an attorney conflict-of-interest suit. Judge Alan Prost said most of the information the coalition is seeking to redact was made publicly available in the Court of International Trade proceeding, and said information relating to the terms of an engagement agreement the coalition sought to redact was "disclosed without objection" in importer Amsted Rail's opening and reply briefs (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
World Trade Organization members negatively affected by national security-related trade restrictions may be able to impose retaliatory measures as a way to address the U.S. gripe with the body's review of national security issues, former Office of the U.S. Trade Representative counsel Warren Maruyama and former WTO deputy director-general Alan Wolff said. In a working paper released by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Maruyama and Wolff propose a compromise to the U.S. position that national security claims are nonreviewable.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Although the Commerce Department in an antidumping duty proceeding found that GreenFirst Forest is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM), it concurrently found in a countervailing duty proceeding that the same acquisition was a "significant change," GreenFirst told the Court of International Trade. Even though Commerce uses different standards for starting AD and CVD changed circumstances reviews, GreenFirst thought it was significant that the agency analyzed the acquisition and found "there were no relevant changes to its structure and operations following the acquisition” (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked the government to respond to a petition for rehearing filed by steel importers led by PrimeSource Building Products on the appellate court's opinion upholding President Donald Trump's expansion of the Section 232 national security tariffs to steel "derivative" products. The court asked the U.S. to file a response on or before June 6. The rehearing motion argued that if the decision stands, the president "will enjoy unbounded legislative power to regulate foreign trade -- to take any action, at any time, targeting any imported product," so long as the commerce secretary makes a threat determination on the targeted product or any material used to make the product (see 2304260033) (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire does not have standing to appeal a Court of International Trade decision barring the government from collected AD cash deposits from exporter Oman Fasteners at the "punitive" 154.33% dumping rate, Oman Fasteners argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mid Continent is not subject to the injunction and cannot establish legally protected interest in the injunction, "which merely keeps Oman Fasteners in business until a final rate can be determined," the brief said (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Claims made by importer Aspects Furniture International that questioned CBP evidence in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation lack merit, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The bedroom furniture importer “advances numerous arguments that quibble with credibility findings and overlook detailed explanations provided by Customs," the government said following a remand proceeding at the trade court (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).