The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 15-21:
Some major publishing houses, along with several other smaller publishers, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the legality of List 4A of the Section 301 tariffs on China goods. In a Feb. 17 filing, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, with others, said the 10% tariff extension to more than $120 billion in List 4A goods violated the Administrative Procedure Act -- a legal theory used by more than 3,500 other companies in similar cases against the tariffs. Also party to the suit are Bloomsbury Publishing, HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Holtzbrinck Publishers, Storey Publishing, Teacher Created Materials, The Experiment, Timber Press and Workman Publishing.
The Court of International Trade ordered the Commerce Department to reconsider its determination that certain hardwood plywood with outer veneers of radiata or agathis pine is circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China. CIT Judge Jane Restani found that Commerce had insufficient evidence to prove that the type of plywood in question was developed after the duties were imposed, in a Feb. 18 decision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the delay of a ban on imports of a rival product to Allergan's Botox. The day before the 21-month limited exclusion order was to take effect on South Korean company Daewoong Pharmaceutical's anti-wrinkle treatment Jeuveau, the court temporarily halted the International Trade Commission's ban while the case is being heard. Any oppositions to the motion -- a position held by Allergan and its Korean partner Medytox -- are due by March 2, and any support of the delay must be submitted by March 5. The exclusion order stems from an ITC investigation into allegations that imports of botulinum toxin products violate Section 337 by way of theft of Medytox's and Allergan's trade secrets (see 1903080013). Daewoong and its U.S. subsidiary Evolus oppose the ban, claiming that the ITC has weaponized these investigations against rival manufacturers even when no violation of U.S. law has been committed. “Evolus is pleased with this decision as it allows us to continue to sell Jeuveau® to our customers without interruption,” a spokesperson for Evolus said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb.8-14:
TCL Communication Technology Holdings’ North American smartphone subsidiary became one of the largest importers to join the massive Section 301 litigation when it filed a complaint Feb. 12 in the Court of International Trade. Like the roughly 3,500 other lawsuits inundating the court, TCT Mobile (US) seeks to get the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods vacated and the duties refunded with interest. TCT's claims “accrued with each and every entry of products” with List 3 or List 4A tariff exposure, the company said. The “instant action” was filed within two years of the date that TCT paid the lists 3 and 4A duties, it said, satisfying the court’s two-year statute of limitations on the timeliness of complaints.
Importer E.G. Plastics failed to pay antidumping duties on 25 entries of polyethylene retail carrier bags and now must pay $1.1 million plus pre-judgment interest. Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann issued a default judgment against E.G. Plastics after the company failed to defend itself in court against allegations that it failed to pay the duties on bags imported between 2008 and 2009. “Because E.G. Plastics failed to protest the liquidations of the entries at issue and E.G. Plastics failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend itself in this action, the court grants the Government’s motion for default judgment,” the decision said.
Target Corporation was denied the chance to appeal a Court of International Trade decision on the antidumping duty rate for ironing tables from China that the retailer imports. In a Feb. 16 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that the company has no right to appeal because it wasn't part of the original case and that it is not appealing CIT's original decision to deny Target the right to intervene in the original case.
The Department of Justice and the City and County of San Francisco reached a settlement allowing the U.S. to return two Thai lintels to their country of origin. The Feb. 10 settlement, announced in a news release, resolved ongoing litigation between San Francisco and the U.S. that began in October 2020 when the consul general of the Thai consulate in Los Angeles saw the religious relics at the San Francisco Asian Art Museum and inquired about their origin (see 2010280020). It is believed the lintels were exported from Thailand more than 50 years ago in violation of Thai law and were subsequently donated to San Francisco, where they remained on display at the museum. The lintels will be returned to Thailand under DOJ's victim remission program and placed on exhibition in Thailand, the release said.
The Court of International Trade will use a “master case” to reduce the time and expense of duplicate filings in the more than 3,700 lawsuits against President Donald Trump's lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs, CIT Judge Mark Barnett said in a Feb. 10 order. Barnett also gave the government defense until March 12, 2021, to submit its first defense, barring no motions to extend time to file. These procedural steps pertain to the copious number of Section 301 cases that were assigned to a three-panel judge at CIT on Feb. 5 (see 2102050008).