The Court of International Trade properly dismissed importer Rimco's challenge to antidumping and countervailing duty challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the importer filed its case under Section 1581(a), the true home for the action is Section 1581(c) since it challenges the final AD/CVD rates set by the Commerce Department. "The decision of what rate to apply is Commerce’s alone and, for that reason, the claims should have been brought as 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) challenges," the brief said (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 15 confidential opinion granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping case, enjoining the U.S. from "taking any action to enforce, implement, or execute" the duties set by the Commerce Department on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker also barred CBP from collecting AD duty cash deposits on the nails after Oman Fasteners argued that the 154.33% adverse facts available rate set as the cash deposit mark would bankrupt the company (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 denied an importer and its owner's motion for reconsideration in a penalty case where they stand accused of customs fraud, as well as their bid to appeal a single issue in the case related to the date the alleged fraud was discovered (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee will appeal two December Court of International Trade opinions upholding Commerce Department scope rulings. In the case, Commerce on remand found importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds were not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, finding they qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion (see 2212190051). Per a pair of Feb. 14 notices of appeal, the committee will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 14 order granted the Commerce Department's bid for a voluntary remand to address its selection of only one respondent in a countervailing duty case. Judge Timothy Reif gave the agency 45 days to file its remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03885).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply a 10.54% adverse facts available countervailing duty rate to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for respondent Yama Ribbons. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade Feb. 15, Commerce said the CVD rate "does not unreasonably penalize Yama as a cooperative respondent" and using AFA was warranted given the Chinese government's failure to cooperate in the case (Yama Ribbons and Bows v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).
The Commerce Department has illegally "tripled down" on its use of "data tainted by foreign-government subsidies" in calculating constructed value in an antidumping duty case, respondent Oman Fasteners argued in its Feb. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Despite the Federal Circuit's previous opinion remanding the use of a surrogate company's financial data over subsidy concerns, "Commerce jumped from the frying pan to the fire" and used a new proxy that also received government subsidies, the brief said (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 13 text-only notice alerted appellee CP Kelco it has failed to file a response brief in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The court said failure to file such a brief could lead to "dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).