The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 17 order granted a stay in a case on the Enforce and Protect Act investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India until 30 days after all appeals are foreclosed in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States case. In Royal Brush, the appellate court said that CBP violated an importer's due process rights in an EAPA investigation by not providing that company access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078, -1081).
The Commerce Department illegally rejected importer LE Commodities' requests for exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on its imports of stainless steel round bar, the importer argued in an Oct. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. LE Commodities argued that looking at the record, the "only reasonable conclusion" was that the company cannot obtain these goods in the U.S. market in a "sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 23-00220).
Akin's Devin Sikes was appointed to the Court of International Trade's Rules Advisory Committee. The commiAn international trade counsel at Akin, Sikes adjudicates trade remedies and customs matters.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).
Exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire failed to argue that the Commerce Department could only limit respondents in an antidumping duty review when the number of respondents is large administratively, petitioner Southwire Co. said in its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Should the appellate court find that Jin Tiong and Repwire didn't fail to exhaust their administrative remedies, the decision not to assign Jin Tiong a separate rate rested on the exporter's "failure to submit a timely" separate rate application, the petitioner argued (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
US Offers 'Desperate Reaches' to Fend Off Injunction in Case on UFLPA Entity Listing, Company Argues
The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its subsidy finding in a countervailing duty investigation for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 13 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu defended his prior remand order in the case, which said that based on Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, the subsidy finding couldn't be legal.
A U.K. appeals court last week granted an injunction blocking a Gazprom subsidiary from suing its lenders in a Russian court over an abandoned gas project. The England and Wales Court of Appeal said it was the proper place to bring RusChemAlliance's claim against Germany-based Deutsche Bank, adding that there was no good reason not to impose the injunction.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: