The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Catfish Farmers of America (CFA), failed to argue one count of its complaint in its opening brief, so the Court of International Trade should consider the issue abandoned, defendant-intervenor Nam Viet Corp. argued in a Feb. 1 opposition brief (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration and not to treat POSCO Plantec -- an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent POSCO -- as a cross-owned input supplier of POSCO. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 31, Commerce said that the subsidy allegation over the provision of off-peak electricity "did not provide sufficient evidence of a benefit for Commerce to initiate on the allegation," and that the inputs provided by POSCO Planted were not mainly dedicated to downstream product production (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00182).
The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation against Leco Supply, in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion made public Feb. 1. Judge Mark Barnett held that CBP legally initiated the investigation, backed the evasion decision with substantial evidence, properly rejected Leco's written arguments during remand as untimely and protected the plaintiff's due process rights.
The I.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 31 order gave plaintiff-appellants Tau-Ken Temir and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration an extra two weeks to file their opening brief in a countervailing duty case. The appellants now have until Feb. 14 to file the opening brief, while the appellees -- the U.S. and petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon -- have until May 22 to file their responses (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department properly found that Australian steel maker BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that claims from AD petitioner U.S. Steel "are based entirely on a misreading of the supply agreement," since the agreement actually sets the price the importer will charge Steelscape, the affiliated final customer, and is silent as to the transfer price between the exporter and importer (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing has failed to rebut the U.S.'s showing that an appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be dismissed since the entries have all been liquidated, the government argued in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Royal Brush failed to address the U.S. reliance on Federal Circuit precedent showing that "an unprotested liquidation divests the trial court of jurisdiction, even if the liquidation was erroneous," the brief said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Endura Products' request to stay proceedings in an EAPA case, pending resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court, plaintiff Columbia Aluminum Products argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief. Since CIT found that Columbia's assembled door thresholds are finished merchandise and thus not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2212190051), the present EAPA case "cannot survive," the brief said. This outcome "should result in the granting of Columbia Aluminum’s Rule 56.2 motion and a denial of the motion Endura filed" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 order gave importer Wanxiang America an additional 2,000 words for its upcoming reply brief as it seeks to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. Wanxiang America had asked for an extra 3,000 words, arguing that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs" (see 2301270079) (United States v. Wanxiang America, CIT # 22-00205).