The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff-appellant Amsted Rail Co.'s attorney conflict of interest case because it should have instead been filed as a challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, and in any case ARC doesn't prove a conflict of interest existed from the participation of its former counsel in the investigations, the ITC and defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Rail Producers argued in a pair of reply briefs filed Feb. 22 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
Antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec failed to prove that it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without an injunction against AD cash deposits, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 24 opinion denying the preliminary injunction motion. Judge Stephen Vaden added that Grupo Simec's evidence purportedly showing how it would be harmed without the injunction contained conclusory evidence that, if held to be sufficient to establish harm, would "eviscerate the operation of the antidumping laws."
U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The use of an entire population of data instead of a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the use of the Cohen's d test in the differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 23 opinion rejecting antidumping duty respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s bid for reconsideration.
The commerce secretary's report allowing President Donald Trump to take tariff action on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act nor can it be reviewed for arbitrariness, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if it was up for review, the secretary did not misconstrue the statute since it does not require the report to make a finding on the imminent nature of any threat to national security, the government said (USP Holdings, et al. v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-565).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Defendant-intervenor Endura Products dropped out of an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade after its bid for a stay in the action pending the resolution of a scope proceeding also at the trade court was denied (see 2302060069). Submitting a motion to withdraw Feb. 21, Endura said it "no longer has an interest in the current appeal" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The Commerce Department "explicitly mischaracterized record evidence" when it said countervailing duty respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co.'s (GRT's) only U.S. customer didn't certify that it had not used China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the respondent argued in a Feb. 17 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce also failed to properly use adverse facts available over the EBCP, since the agency is required to find whether any information on the record could fill the gap that renders AFA unnecessary, but did not, the motion said (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).
A horizontal lawnmower engine should be excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China, given the plain language of the orders' scope excludes horizontal engines, exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00011).
The question of whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations constitutes a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress as established in the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. EPA decision, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations said in a supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 22 (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).