As filing day approaches, the calendar is marked with a big figurative red X, multiple alerts have been set and hours have been spent combing through documents to make sure the Commerce Department’s ACCESS system accepts the submission. But sometimes, despite all the preparation, something derails the process and the documents are turned in late. Suddenly, a routine part of the job has morphed into every lawyer’s nightmare -- a missed deadline.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A lawsuit over an expired comparability finding for New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries should be dismissed since the comparability findings “are not capable of repetition yet evading review,” the U.S. said March 29. There is no “reasonable expectation” that anyone will be subjected to the same findings, the government said. The challenge should be dismissed because the proceeding deals with whether certain fish can enter the U.S. during a discreet time period that has now passed, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).
The Commerce Department didn't adequately address questions raised by countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. over the agency's use of certain benchmark information for the land program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a March 21 opinion made public March 29. Upholding parts and sending back parts of the 2016-17 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum foil from China, Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce must reconsider its analysis of the contemporaneity of data it used for the land program benchmark.
CBP said that all wooden bedroom furniture imported by Aspects Furniture International was covered merchandise subject to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation despite a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that only two of six types of Aspects' furniture was covered merchandise. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on March 27, CBP said the finding was justified due to adverse inferences levied against the importer (Aspects Furniture International v. U.S., CIT # 20-03824).
The consent of a foreign manufacturer does not overcome the Privacy Act of 1974's ban on disclosure of the confidential Enforce and Protect Act record, the U.S. said in response to importer Richmond International Forest Products' motion to compel. Richmond's motion does not qualify for disclosure since the company is requesting the entire confidential EAPA record, which has data submitted by parties other than the consenting foreign manufacturer, LB Wood, the government said (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).
The Court of International Trade on March 29 dismissed a lawsuit from cell phone case maker Otter Products seeking interest on customs duty overpayments, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Claire Kelly held that the Administrative Procedure Act waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to interest on deposits linked with liquidated entries. As a result, there is no specific waiver of immunity related to Otter's claim for interest for its overpayments on tendered prior disclosures "under the no-interest rule," Kelly said.
Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to a 16-minute late submission (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The U.S. this week charged FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act's anti-bribery provisions. Filing a superseding indictment at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York March 27, the U.S. Attorney's Office said Bankman-Fried and others paid around $40 million in cryptocurrency to one or more Chinese government officials to "induce them" to unfreeze certain cryptocurrency trading accounts held by one of Bankman-Fried's companies, Alameda Research (U.S. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, S.D.N.Y. # 22-00673).
Oil country tubular goods exporter Husteel Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it does not intend to participate in an appeal over the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping. Husteel made the declaration in response to the court's notice to the company regarding its counsel's entry of appearance and certificate of interest. The appeal was recently reactivated following a Court of International Trade decision upholding the agency's use of the d test (see 2303070042) (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).