The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily suspended a False Claims Act case over whether Sigma Corp. and other companies failed to pay antidumping duties on pipe fitting imports. The court ordered the case "held in abeyance" because of pending cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Congress intended for subsidies given to "disparate processed agricultural products" to be countervailable under countervailing duty laws, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments from three Spanish olive exporters against the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent finding" in the Spanish olives CVD investigation, the coalition said that Commerce "responsibly interpreted the statutory language broadly" and in line with statutory intent (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
Estonian electronics exporter By Trade OU asked a court to issue a sentence against the company that would require it to forfeit all its assets as punishment for violating U.S. export controls against Russia. Filing a sentencing memorandum with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, By Trade OU offered up its remaining assets, totalling over $337,000, since it would not be able to pay any fine ordered by the court "due to its financial resources." The company said it would then "cease operations" (United States v. By Trade OU, D. Conn. # 22-00110)
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade did not direct the Commerce Department to account for compliance costs incurred by countervailing duty respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen in the agency's subsidy calculations, the U.S. argued in defense of its decision not to consider BGH's costs of compliance with Germany's Electricity Tax Act and Energy Act Act (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The statute of limitations for collection of duties under a bond expires six years after the relevant entries are liquidated, surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said in its response to a customs penalty complaint from the government. Aegis disputed the U.S. claim that the calculation of delinquency runs from the billing of the subject entry (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariff action under Section 232.
The Commerce Department committed a "clear legal error" by failing to follow the statute and its own prior practice by using acquisition prices paid by antidumping duty respondent Nexco as opposed to actual cost data from the beekeepers themselves for the cost of production in an AD investigation on raw honey from Argentina, Nexco argued in a March 24 reply brief. The respondent said there is nothing "pragmatic" about disregarding the actual costs of making the merchandise under review in favor of acquisition prices, as the government claims (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).
A Washington, D.C., court last week rejected a Russian citizen’s bid to dismiss government accusations that he misled investors about his company’s “key” space technology and several U.S. “adverse national security determinations” against the company. The ruling came after the Securities and Exchange Commission said Mikhail Kokorich, former CEO of space industry startup Momentus, made several “misrepresentations, false statements, and material omissions” in merger discussions with another firm, failing to disclose that the Commerce Department had rejected at least one of his company's export license applications and planned to deny another (SEC v. Mikhail Kokorich, D.D.C. # 21-1869).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed a suit against the State Department concerning the regulation of 3D gun file exports, saying the claims are moot because the State Department shifted export control responsibility to the Commerce Department. Judge Robert Pitman dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying plaintiffs Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation failed to show the State Department still regulated the exports. Pitman also ruled that Defense Distributed's claim for monetary damages against the State Department belongs "to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims."