The Court of International Trade should give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a voluntary remand in a case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act 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, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 8 motion. The voluntary remand would let the NOAA "amend the current comparability findings for certain New Zealand fisheries whose expiration dates conform with the deadlines set forth for other comparability findings to be issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)," the government said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The rehearing motion from plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, "appears to be little more than an impermissible attempt to relitigate an argument" already dispatched by the Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen Vaden held in a Nov. 8 opinion. Ellwood City sought reconsideration of the court's order tossing the challenge to the Commerce Department's failure to conduct on-site verification during an antidumping review, given that the plaintiffs failed to broach the topic administratively. Vaden said that Ellwood City misunderstood "the nexus between futility" and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
Arguments from plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's remand submission at the Court of International Trade lack merit and reveal a "misunderstanding of judicial remands," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 4 brief defending the remand results. The plaintiffs said that USTR cannot take another look at the record to defend its tariff action under Section 301 from public comments and can only "parrot existing statements" on the record. The government said that this view is not compatible with a key Supreme Court precedent, and that under this interpretation, no agency would be able to stand by its decision in fixing a failure to respond to public comments (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Chief Judge Kimberly Moore at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during Nov. 3 oral argument, questioned plaintiff-appellant M S International's (MSI's) position that the Commerce Department failed to include quartz surface product (QSP) fabricators as part of the domestic industry for quartz surface products when initiating the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on QSPs from India (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).