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).
Importer Southern Cross Seafood failed to rebut the government's showing that the National Marine Fisheries Service's denial of the company's preapproval application seeking to import Chilean sea bass does not amount to an embargo, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if this denial were an embargo, Southern Cross has further failed to show that jurisdiction does not exclusively lie in the relevant district court and not at the trade court, the U.S. said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order let the Commerce Department add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis to the record in an antidumping duty case. The order said the memorandum is appropriately part of the record because the agency used it in coming up with the review's final results. Judge Stephen Vaden held that omitting the analysis would "frustrate judicial review," and that, despite respondent Grupo Simec's claims, Commerce did not act in bad faith by leaving the review off the record.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed U.S. Steel Corp.'s appeal of its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denial. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), in which the appellate court said that a group of domestic steel companies do not have standing to intervene in these types of actions, the case should be dismissed (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).
Importer Wanxiang America asked the Court of International Trade for an extra 3,000 words for its reply to the U.S.'s opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. In a Jan. 27 motion seeking a total of 10,000 words for its reply brief, Wanxiang America said 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." The U.S. opposes the motion (U.S. v. Wanxiang America Corporation, CIT # 22-00205).
While the Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions to reconsider the application of a Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) to a Mexican labor rate, the agency still used "unsupported and arbitrary justifications" to back its refusal to use Brazilian labor data in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff American Keg Co. argued. Filing comments on Commerce's remand results on Jan. 26 at the trade court, the plaintiff claimed that Commerce abused its discretion by using Mexican International Labour Organization (ILO) data that appears to not have been available at the time of the investigation (New American Keg v. United States, CIT # 20-00008).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed an appeal led by Ellwood City Forge on the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping duty investigation. The appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the action before filing their opening brief at the appellate court. Counsel for Ellwood did not reply to request for comment on the reason for dismissing the case (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1382).