The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly applied to antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems total adverse facts available, the U.S. said in response to Hyundai over Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. The agency should not have hit the respondent with partial AFA, as Hyundai argued, since the missing service-related revenues (SRRs) on the record are not a limited and discrete category of information and since Hyundai's omission of one U.S. sale is significant, given the limited number of sales, the U.S. said (Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00108).
The Commerce Department did not properly conduct its "primarily dedicated" analysis when it found that Nur Gemicilik ve Tic is a cross-owned input supplier of plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s position that Nur is a cross-owned input supplier since scrap is used in the production of subject merchandise and all of Nur's scrap generation was sold to Kaptan, thus making it "primarily dedicated" to the downstream product, cuts against the words of the countervailing duty preamble and Commerce's own precedent, Kaptan said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00565).
The Court of International Trade should stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, given the former counsel's alleged "betrayal," the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By not blocking the release of the BPI, the ITC is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights, the brief said (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 U.S. in an Oct. 13 motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked for 30 more days to file an amicus brief in a case over whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The U.S. originally failed to appear in the case, leading to the appellate court inviting the government to file an amicus brief and address whether Commerce has the authority to engage in expedited CVD reviews (see 2206100045) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).
The National Marine Fisheries Service illegally denied importer Southern Cross Seafood's application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, Southern Cross argued in an Oct. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. NMFS said it could not permit the imports given the lack of a Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention (CAMLR) conservation measure for the area in the Atlantic Ocean north of Antarctica where the fish are harvested. Southern Cross argued that the Commission for the CAMLR does not prohibit fishing for the sea bass there in the absence of a conservation measure (Southern Cross Seafoods v. U.S., CIT #22-00299).
The Court of International Trade must dismiss a case accusing the importer and U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, Wanxiang America Corp., of negligence by making false statements and omissions on its entries of wheel hub assemblies, radial ball and tapered roller bearings, and universal joints and their parts, WXA argued in an Oct. 12 motion.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department decided to grant Universal Tube and Plastic Industries a level of trade adjustment in an antidumping duty review on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its redetermination on Oct. 13, Commerce found Universal made its home market sales at two LOTs, though it continued to deny Universal a constructed export price offset. The result was a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.18% for Universal (Universal Tube and Plastic Indus. v. United States, CIT #20-03944).