The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend eight of its rules of practice and four of its practice notes, it said in a Jan. 20 update. The court previously delayed the implementation of the amendments (see 2211170033). The amendments would alter rules 26, 30, 31, 33, 33.1, 34, 39 and 47.6, and the practice notes to rules 34, 42, 47.5 and 47.6. If adopted, the amendments would take effect March 1. Comments are due by Feb. 21.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. held oral arguments on Jan. 17 over Turkish state-owned Halkbank's claims that the U.S. judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against foreign governments and their state-owned entities. Halkbank is attempting to shirk prosecution over its efforts to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bank's arguments received a mixed reaction from the Supreme Court, with numerous justices expressing doubt over the plaintiff's claims that it is immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).
Russian exporter TMK Group on Jan. 20 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on the International Trade Commission's injury finding on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Russia that led to the imposition of a countervailing duty order on the goods. The three-count complaint challenges the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Russia with imports from Brazil, Mexico and South Korea; its analysis of South Korea's imports in the cumulation analysis; and its decision that material injury to the domestic industry was "by reason of imports" (TMK Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00346).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
The Court of International Trade illegally applied a lower standard for its "substantially dependent" test when finding that certain subsidies apply to Spanish olive growers, improperly using a post-codification administrative decision to apply the lower standard, some Spanish olive growers argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jan. 17, the plaintiff-appellants said allowing Commerce to gauge its decisions against its own later rulings and not the unambiguous statute "would frustrate the core tenets of U.S. administrative law and allow Commerce to amend legislation through its own administrative process" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 18 in an antidumping case on whether the Commerce Department can pick just one mandatory respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review. In an August 2022 decision, the appellate court said that Commerce cannot use only one respondent in this context, finding that doing so cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). After the opinion was issued, the government asked for, and was given, more time to file a petition for rehearing (see 2211210070). The rehearing motion never came, leading to the Federal Circuit's mandate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).