The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 oral argument questioned importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, over its jurisdictional grounds to challenge a CBP decision, given that the company failed to file a protest. SIS argued that it didn't need to file a protest to challenge the liquidation of its entries, given that there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation. At oral argument, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes probed this position, with Hughes in particular expressing doubt over the claim, given the finality surrounding CBP's liquidation of imports (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
Antidumping duty petitioners submitted various supplemental authorities in Amsted Rail Co.'s case over its former counsel's purported "betrayal" in using a former client's information against it in a later injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. The petitioners, collectively referred to as the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers, included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch discussing whether ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now-partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, committed an ethics violation. Frisch said that the D.C. Bar Rule 1.9 concerning conflicts of interest does not apply to ARC since the only party affected by the injury proceeding is ASF-K de Mexico, a Mexican maquiladora factory affiliated with ARC that did not formerly employ Pickard, and that ARC's lawsuit is an "abuse of the litigation process" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Korean Emissions Trading System (KETS) conferred a countervailable benefit to countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the U.S. argued in a Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The South Korean government foregoes revenue when it allocated certain business sectors, and by extension, Hyundai, an additional 3% of Korean Allowance Units (KAUs) to offset carbon emissions, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00029).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 order deactivated U.S. Steel Corp.'s recently filed appeal over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. U.S. Steel filed the appeal amid a spat over a motion from plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. to reconsider the court's opinion. Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file an appeal runs from the order disposing of the last remaining motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1109).
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) and ASF-K Mexico again took to the Court of International Trade, this time against the Commerce Department, in a bid to get the trade court to disqualify its former law firm from further participation in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and Mexico. ARC and ASF-K said that Commerce's refusal to disqualify Buchanan Ingersoll and timely rescind access to business proprietary information (BPI) violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiff's right to due process (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s port rights at the North Incheon Harbor do not let it use the port free of charge, making the Commerce Department's decision to countervail the port rights illegal, the respondent argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. and CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. "misrepresent" the nature of Hyundai's port rights since it is not allowed to use the port free of charge and merely gets certain fees to help recoup its costs from building the port, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00304).
The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
By deducting the value of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) -- tradeable credits issued by the EPA -- from antidumping duty respondent Wilmar Trading's export price, the Commerce Department "penalizes Wilmar for having to navigate different regulatory regimes for biodiesel in the United States and Indonesia," Wilmar argued in comments on Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. The result is an arbitrarily inflated dumping margin derived from Commerce's approach, which is separate from Wilmar's "actual commercial experience," the brief said (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).