The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. voiced its opposition to countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir's bid to make a fourth correction to its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said TKT's attempt to shoehorn arguments on the Commerce Department's new regulations concerning untimely submitted files violates the limitations on raising new authorities. If new authorities arise after a brief has been filed, the litigant must alert the court via a letter, the government said. TKT tried instead to insert a new argument in its corrections to its opening brief, sidestepping these limitations and "presenting a continually moving target" and impacting the government's ability to respond (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected customs broker license exam test-taker Byungmin Chae's petition for rehearing in his pro se case challenging the answers to a handful of questions on the April 2018 exam. Judges Pauline Newman, Sharon Prost and Kimberly Hughes rejected the petition in a per curiam order. After failing the exam initially, Chae appealed his results twice to CBP, once at the Court of International Trade and once at the Federal Circuit, leaving him just one question shy of a passing grade (see 2305100030). His rehearing bid centered on one question that was previously considered by the appellate court (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. # 22-2017).
Importer Files Supreme Court Appeal on CAFC Opinion Requiring Protest Within 180 Days of Liquidation
Importer Acquisition 362, d/b/a Strategic Import Supply (SIS), filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP. SIS said that by establishing this requirement, the appellate court eliminated one statutory mechanism under which importers can file protests and encourages "premature, incomplete, sham protest filings" (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., U.S. # 22-1102).
The Court of International Trade ruled that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to show that the court should revisit its past order allowing four U.S. steel companies to intervene in a case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination related to imports of hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Judge Timothy Reif said the four companies champion claims that share a common question of law or fact with the case's main action, would be adversely affected if the court were to rule in Erdemir's favor and would not unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights.
Amsterdam-based multinational conglomerate Koninklijke Philips will pay more than $62 million to settle charges it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act related to its sales of medical diagnostic equipment in China, the SEC announced. Without admitting guilt, Philips agreed to pay $15 million in civil penalties and over $47 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s motion to alter or amend the court's judgment so that the court may interpret Italian law since Pirelli cannot show that there were errors or irregularities in the ruling, the U.S. claimed in a reply brief. The government added that even if the trade court were to consider the evidence Pirelli is looking to add to the record, the motion fails "because it is not the role of this Court to make factual determinations with regard to foreign law in Commerce’s stead" (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00115).
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation officially filed on May 12 their notice of appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision upholding President Donald Trump's tariff action on China. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT had agreed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).