The Court of International Trade should deny fish importer Southern Cross Seafoods' motion to expedite a case concerning the importer's application for preapproval to enter Chilean sea bass since the question of jurisdiction should settle the action, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 28 reply brief. The motion to expedite is "premature and unwarranted," and failing to expedite would not deprive Southern Cross of its requested relief, the U.S. said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
CBP cannot rely on country trade patterns as specific evidence for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties in Enforce and Protect Act proceedings, importer Skyview Cabinets USA argued in a Nov. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP also erred by relying on statements from a corporate investigator, paid for by the alleger in the EAPA case, that are "inconsistent with the record." While Masterbrand tries to "downplay" facts presented by Skyview by using words such as "discrepancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and omissions," CBP never investigated any of these perceived discrepancies as required by law, Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Commerce Department in Nov. 29 remand results at the Court of International Trade dropped its particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value following a voluntary remand request in an antidumping duty case. The result dropped respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Ltd.'s AD margin from 36.97% to 14.74%. The agency also reduced the margin for non-selected respondent Thai Premium Pipe Co. since it is part of the litigation (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT #21-00627).
The Court of International Trade should condition its dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to release goods excluded over forced labor concerns on CBP honoring an agreement that would allow the goods to be exported, importer Virtus Nutrition argued in a Nov. 28 reply brief. Responding to the U.S.'s refusal to commit to honoring the Temporary Storage Agreement, which would ensure that the goods could be exported, Virtus said that it is not trying to extend the agreement, as the government argues, but merely to enforce it (Virtus Nutrition v. U.S., CIT #21-00165).
CBP failed to provide public summaries of the confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 28 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back parts and upheld parts of the EAPA finding, ultimately also remanding CBP's decision to retroactively cover entries made before the EAPA statute came into force and include merchandise found by the Commerce Department in a scope ruling to not be covered by the order.
CIT Bars Import of Certain Types of Fish From New Zealand, Says Conservation Group Likely to Succeed
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 28 blocked imports of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. In an opinion that cited renowned conservationist Rachel Carson, Judge Gary Katzmann found plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing two claims in the case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, warranting the injunction. The injunction covers snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from the New Zealand set-net and trawl fisheries.
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to uphold the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis (DPA) to root out "masked" dumping, given a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Nov. 21 reply brief. Responding to the U.S.'s opposition to the rehearing bid, SeAH said that since the Federal Circuit called the use of the Cohen's d test into question in Stupp Corp. v. U.S., the trade court needs to reconsider its ruling made before the CAFC decision (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
A voluntary remand is not needed in a case concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that allegedly have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, plaintiffs Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society argued in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. NOAA's call for a voluntary remand "is a red herring" and would let the agency "avoid the repercussions of its decision to not rule on the" New Zealand government's 2021 comparability findings application by the end of the year -- a move that delays the consideration of new information over the Maui dolphin, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The Court of International Trade erred by upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Commerce's original scope ruling including dual-stenciled pipe was backed by evidence since the pipe met the physical characteristics laid out in the scope of the order "and was made to an industrial specification for standard pipe" (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).