The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
The Commerce Department violated the law by changing the date of sale for antidumping respondent Octal's U.S. sales from the dates reported by the exporter, the company argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used the date when the relevant price index was published, as reported by the respondent, rather than the invoice date for the date of sale. The result of the switch was a 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).
The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).
Amendments to various rules at the Court of International Trade will take effect Jan. 23, the court said Dec. 27. The rules were announced Dec. 13. The trade court approved changes to rules 3.1, 7, 56.1, 56.2, 60 and 81; Form 24; and Standard Chambers Procedures. Many of the rules pertain to the requirement that parties submit motions for judgment and briefs in support of the motions in one single document.
A recent Court of International Trade opinion on the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case "addresses nearly identical facts" as in an AD case brought by plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading and Xinjiang Meihua Amina Acid Co. (Meihua), the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 22 notice of supplemental authority. The recent CIT case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., saw the court rule that the Commerce Department improperly used AFA since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 28 dismissed an appeal from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline over Section 232 exclusion requests. The appellants asked for the case to be dismissed after CBP dropped the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the entries at issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear an Enforce and Protect Act case even though the entries in question have liquidated, plaintiff-appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 27 opening brief. "Absurd results would also surely follow if the CIT does not have jurisdiction over liquidated entries," the plaintiff-appellants claimed while vying for jurisdiction for their EAPA case under Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a set of domestic steel companies' bid for a rehearing of the court's denial of its bid to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.