Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade, led by Amsted Rail Co., amended their complaint after a similar case of theirs against the International Trade Commission was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint added a specific alleged instance in which ARC gave its former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now of Buchanan Ingersoll, information that is now being used against it in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
CBP in a Nov. 21 remand submission to the Court of International Trade continued to find that MSeafood Corporation did not evade antidumping duties by transshipping Indian shrimp through Vietnam. The agency said it believes it complied with the trade court's remand order by having CBP's Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate transmit all documents that were "inadvertently omitted" from the record to the agency's Office of Regulations and Rulings, and placing a revised public version of business confidential information (BC) on the record (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 18 gave the U.S. more time to file a petition for rehearing in an antidumping duty case. In the case, the Federal Circuit found that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The court ruled that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language. The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate. The U.S. was previously given 60 more days to file the rehearing motion, and now has another 30, giving it until Jan. 11, 2023, to file a petition for rehearing (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).
The Commerce Department did not "sufficiently" identify withheld information to justify of its use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff Kumar Industries argued in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to identify "a single document that was actually missing" to justify the use of AFA and also chose not to verify the information submitted by Kumar despite ample opportunity to do so, the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit asked the Court of International Trade for an injunction barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from participating in a set of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations before the International Trade Commission. Filing a motion for injunction pending appeal after the trade court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., argued that they're likely to succeed on appeal since, at the very least, they raised serious legal questions, warranting a stay order from the court. The plaintiffs also claimed that the court erred by illegally shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to identify specific times ARC shared confidential information with Pickard and Buchanan (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00307).
No lawsuits have been filed at the Court of International Trade since Nov. 16.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold an oral argument on Jan. 10, 2023, at 10 a.m. EST in a case on whether President Donald Trump illegally expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. According to the notice of oral argument, the court will hold the hearing in Courtroom 201 in the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington. In the case, the Court of International Trade said that Trump illegally expanded the tariffs to derivative products beyond the 105-day deadline to take tariff action that runs from the submission of a report from the commerce secretary. In Transpacific Steel v. U.S., however, the Federal Circuit said that Trump could take certain tariff actions beyond this deadline so long as it it was part of the original "plan of action" (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The Commerce Department in Nov. 17 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and Malaysian company Bravo Green's 2018 financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in an antidumping duty case (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00131).
Trade Court Sends Back Commerce's Decision to Decline to Start Successor-in-Interest CCR in CVD Case
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 18 opinion. In defending its decision, Commerce cited its "significant change" practice, under which it says it will not start a CCR where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since the successor company did not have an individually calculated rate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: