The U.S. interpretation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade's Article XXI(b) -- which governs trade moves made for national security -- as being wholly self-judging "is unsupported by the text, context, object and purpose, and negotiating history" of the article, four Akin Gump lawyers said in a working paper under the auspices of the Geneva Graduate Institute Centre for Trade and Economic Integration.
The Court of International Trade agreed to dismiss importer Strato's customs suit on the classification of the company's parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock, hooks and other coupling devices, buffer and parts thereof. Strato filed the suit to claim that its goods were substantially transformed and thus should not be hit with Section 301 duties. The U.S. agreed with the dismissal of the action but no reason was provided for why the suit was ditched (Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00142).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave exporter SeAH Steel Corp. more time to file its reply brief in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked" dumping. The exporter now has until Jan. 8, 2024, to file its brief (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The U.S. said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, alternatively, sever the two companies' proceedings. The government said in its Nov. 16 brief that due to the "substantial overlap in the exporters' cases, dividing the record and requiring two briefs would be "inefficient" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
Importer Under the Weather's response to the U.S. motion to dismiss its customs suit on backpacking tents "rests on legal misunderstandings and a pleading standard that was abrogated over a decade ago," the government said in a Nov. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. said the issue in the case is not whether it is "theoretically possible for a claim to exist" but whether Under the Weather plausibly alleged that a one-sentence approval from an import specialist was the "functional equivalent of a protest review" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).
Solar cell importer Greentech Energy Solution cannot argue both that it suffered no injury on its goods until CBP issued a notice of action and that it was not required to file a protest with CBP since the agency's actions were purely ministerial, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 16 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Addressing Greentech's claims that its actions were not untimely nor improperly brought under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, the government said Greentech's Administrative Procedure Act claim must identify the specific final agency action it is challenging (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 opinion partially ended an antidumping duty case for one of two plaintiffs, German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech, since its claims already have been resolved by the court. Salzgitter challenged the use of adverse facts available on its sales for which the company could not identify or report the manufacturer in the AD investigation of cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany.
World Trade Organization committees could offer a path beyond the Dispute Settlement Body to settle trade-related issues, Baker McKenzie lawyers said in a Nov. 13 blog post. For instance, the Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures committees offer a forum to settle "practical and strategic issues" faced by companies engaged in international trade, the post said.
Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics Corp. will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision excluding importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China. In the opinion, the trade court said the Commerce Department reasonably found that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and an International Trade Commission report, established that the dividers didn't belong in the scope of the orders (see 2309260049). The petitioner said in its Nov. 14 notice of appeal that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).