The Commerce Department illegally valued the factors of production (FOPs) of the intermediate product for a refrigerant, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF), rather than valuing AHF's reported FOPs, plaintiffs led by respondent Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. argued in an Oct. 25 motion for judgment. Typically, Commerce only values the intermediate input directly if valuing the FOPs might lead to an inaccurate result. That was not the case here, since the record shows that there was no need to differentiate between Sanmei's usage of self-made AHF and purchased AHF since none of the antidumping duty review period's U.S. sales were made with purchased AHF, the brief said (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).
A company's information shared with counsel jointly representing another firm is not treated as confidential and "cannot serve as a basis for a conflict claim," counsel for defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) cannot claim that the coalition's counsel -- led by Daniel Pickard of Buchanan Ingersoll -- violated the D.C. Bar's rules of ethics, Pickard said (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp.over the Commerce Department's denial of an exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, DOJ said in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settled this issue in its California Steel Indus. v. U.S. decision (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
ITC Can't Claim Exhaustion Defense Given Release of BPI, Plaintiffs Argue in Row Over Former Counsel
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade is set to have an in-person oral argument on Oct. 26 about the U.S.'s submission of a "consent" motion for leave to add a document to the administrative record but which actually did not have the consent of the plaintiffs, led by Grupo Simec. Judge Stephen Vaden will preside over the hearing to determine whether consent was given to the motion by the plaintiffs (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.