The Court of International Trade canceled an oral argument that had been set for June 6 in an antidumping duty case that revolves around the Commerce Department's decision not to treat Indonesia as being at the same level of economic development as Vietnam during the surrogate country selection process in an AD administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The Catfish Farmers of America also argued against a byproduct offset granted for respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. Judge M. Miller Baker instead ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the evidence cited in the briefing related to the byproduct offset issue. Baker said "the meaning and significance of that evidence is unclear to the court." The briefs may not exceed 2,500 words and must be filed within 21 days (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).
The U.S. reply in a scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fails to follow either scope principle established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key precedential opinion in Arcelormittal Stainless Belg. v. U.S., appellant Sigma Corp. told the appellate court in a reply brief. In violation of Arcelormittal, the government interpreted the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China in a vacuum devoid of any consideration of the way the order's language is used in the relevant industry and identified ambiguity where none exists, Sigma argued (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its opinion on the origin of Cyber Power Systems (USA)'s uninterruptible power supplies because the court shirked its responsibility to arrive at the correct determination, the importer said in a reply brief. Even though the trade court ruled against Cyber Power's position that its power supplies are made in the Philippines, it did not take the next step to determine the goods' actual origin, making "no findings of fact regarding manufacture in China," Cyber Power said (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 20-00124).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Arguments from the U.S. and countervailing duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives related to the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent" finding in the Spanish olives CVD investigation are "part predictable and part remarkable," two Spanish olive growers and a Spanish olive trade group told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1162).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a bid to stop CAFC Judge Kimberly Moore's investigation of Newman's fitness to continue serving on the court. Retaining the New Civil Liberties Alliance as counsel, Newman argued that the fitness proceedings constitute a violation of the separation of powers as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Byungmin Chae filed a petition May 9 for a rehearing of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that landed him one question shy of passing the customs broker exam he took in April 2018. The multiple choice question asked which mail articles are not subject to CBP examination or inspection (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. # 22-2017).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not allow countervailing duty respondent Tau-Ken Temir to "continually revise its opening brief under the guise of a Notice of Correction," CVD petitioners Globe Specialty Metal and Mississippi Silicon argued in a reply brief. Voicing their opposition to TKT's and the Kazakh Ministry of Trade Integration's request to file a fourth opening brief, Globe and Mississippi Silicon said that "even a cursory review of the changes" shows a "litany of changes that are substantive in nature, including new arguments and sentences, deletions of material, and large-scale replacements of discussion" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
Importer Farrier Product Distribution settled its case originally challenging Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on "derivative" products, securing refunds of the duties, the company told the Court of International Trade in a motion to voluntarily dismiss its case. Farrier said the parties sought to "resolve the legal controversy that gave rise to this matter," adding that the U.S. and the importer have been "successful in that effort" (Farrier Product Distribution v. United States, CIT # 20-00098).