Two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, filed for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. CBP recently continued to issue the penalty notices for companies shipping Alaskan seafood from Alaska to the eastern U.S. via the Bayside, New Brunswick, Canada, port, alleging Jones Act violations. The two companies challenged these penalties in the district court, declaring that they have essentially shut down this critical shipping route that had been previously cleared by CBP as complying with the Jones Act.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department switched its original determination and relied on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by an antidumping respondent in Sept. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the second remand in the case, Commerce made the change after the court sustained the other seven issues under contention in the first remand (Husteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00112).

The Commerce Department violated the law in its refusal to accept antidumping respondent OCTAL's new factual information attempting to refute the assumption of affiliation between it and one of its U.S. customers, OCTAL argued in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Following a voluntary remand proceeding meant to give OCTAL a shot at commenting on the affiliation determination, OCTAL blasted the agency for not including its new facts in the case attempting to prove that it is not affiliated with the U.S. customer with which it has an exclusive supply agreement (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina over a shipping company's alleged gross negligence in handling a hemp shipment should be tossed for lack of jurisdiction, defendant Planet Nine Private Air said in a Sept. 1 brief. If the court decides not to dismiss the matter, it should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, since that is where Planet Nine primarily does business and the signing of the contract in dispute was held there, the brief said (We CBD, LLC et al. v. Plante Nine Private Air, LLC, W.D.N.C. #21-00352).

The Commerce Department was wrong to not remove a Section 232 steel tariff adjustment in an antidumping duty calculation in light of the Court of International Trade's opinion finding the tariff hike on Turkish steel was illegal, Turkish steel importer Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret said in a Sept. 2 brief. Following CIT's decision in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Commerce should not have deducted the cost of the duties from Borusan's U.S. price in an antidumping case, the exporter argued. Borusan also again argued that Section 232 duties should not be deducted from the U.S. price since, like Section 201 duties, they are remedial, temporary and would be double-counted if deducted (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00132).

The U.S. Court of International Trade extended by a week to Sept. 10 the deadline for CBP to activate the repository imposed in the July 6 preliminary injunction order for importers to suspend the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Chief Judge Mark Barnett proposed the delay at a status conference held Sept. 1 after plaintiffs and the government appeared close to an agreement on a refund stipulation plan that would make the repository unnecessary (see 2109010055). Activating the repository anyway on its original Sept. 3 deadline in light of the pending agreement would be “an exercise in futility,” Barnett told the court prior to issuing the text order.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Aluminum extrusion producer Kingtom Aluminio's move for partial access under a protective order in an Aug. 27 filing to file additional affidavits and a brief in support of its motion to intervene in an antidumping duty evasion case met with light resistance from the U.S. and defendant-intervenor. Needing the go-ahead from the Court of International Trade, Kingtom also filed for an extension of time to submit its response (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. 21-00198).