The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order granted a motion to extend time to file an opening brief from exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance in a case involving a review of the antidumping duty order on off-the-road tires from China. The exporters now have until Nov. 28 to file the opening brief in a case whin ich the Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's decision to assign Double Coin the 105.31% China-wide dumping rate due to the company's failure to rebut the presumption of Chinese state control over its export activities (see 2307200020) (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
The Court of International Trade stayed a customs case concerning importer Cambridge Isotope Laboratories' enriched ammonium sulfate isotope until Dec. 11, given that Cambridge is consulting with the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners for a "partial revocation of the AD/CVD Orders on Ammonium Sulfide from China." Cambridge filed suit to contest CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD on the imports (see 2308300052) (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
Two importers took to the Court of International Trade to challenge the Commerce Department's final determination that Chinese-origin unfinished pipe fittings that undergo final processing in Vietnam are under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. The companies, International Piping & Procurement Group and Norca Industrial Co., said in a pair of complaints that Commerce's analysis, which found that the goods were not substantially transformed in Vietnam, was "flawed" and ignored key evidence (International Piping & Procurement Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00232) (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).
World Trade Organization members' compliance rates with notification requirements for subsidies and countervailing duties remain "concerningly low," according to the chair of the WTO's Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Compliance is crucial to the function of that committee, its chair, New Zealand's James Lester, said Oct. 27.
The Rotterdam District Court on Oct. 31 sentenced an unnamed Russian businessman to an 18-month prison term for violating the EU's Russia sanctions, according to an unofficial translation. The charges against the man include selling dual-use goods, including a "certain type of integrated circuit" and drones to Russian companies, along with selling, delivering, transferring and exporting nine other integrated circuit types to the same unnamed Russian companies.
The U.S. this week unsealed two indictments charging multiple people in schemes to deliver export-controlled dual-use goods to Russia. In both cases, DOJ charged Russian nationals and others with using Brooklyn-based companies to buy goods on behalf of sanctioned end-users or others connected to Russia's military.
Exporters Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. filed a stipulation of dismissal in the companies' case on the 2014 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The exporters argued against the Commerce Department's decision to treat Jangho's curtain wall and window wall units as subject merchandise and the claim that Jangho received countervailable subsidies pertaining to the provision of glass (Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. v. United States, CIT # 17-00017).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said that CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it access to the confidential business information in the case (see 2307270038) (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
Exporter Oman Fasteners petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products just days before the high court refused to take up a nearly identical case. The Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari on Oct. 30 (see 2310300020) (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-432).