The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. both wrote to the Court of International Trade following an oral argument to give notice of their intent to redact information from the proceeding's transcript. The government said it intends to redact the identity of the surety firm for the single transaction bonds at issue in the customs penalty suit, while Aegis said it is looking to redact the amount of the bonds issued by Hartford Insurance Co., the amount of CBP's demand on Hartford and the amount of CBP's demand on Aegis (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).
Each party to a conflict involving a raw Argentinian honey antidumping duty investigation on Dec. 22 accused the opposing side of misunderstanding the case before the court (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).
The International Trade Commission should have continued its 2023 injury investigation of aluminum extrusion imports from the Dominican Republic, not ruled the imports were “negligible,” domestic petitioners argued Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
DOJ’s admission that an importer’s monthly calendars and desk calendars were classifiable as “calendars” meant that the company’s weekly calendars, which had the same features, also should be classified as such, an organizational tools importer said (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00624).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a text-only order on Dec. 22 gave plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation more time to file their reply brief. The plaintiffs, led by HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, now have until Feb. 12 to file their reply after counsel for the companies said they needed more time due to their "significant additional client responsibilities and obligations that substantially interfere with their ability to file the reply brief by the current deadline" (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case in which the agency was told to verify a Thai mattress importer's data "insofar as the Department relied upon that data." Judge M. Miller Baker noted because the importer, Saffron Living Co., withdrew from the case and no remaining party opposes the remand results, the court will uphold the results and the associated 763.28% antidumping duty rate for Saffron.
The International Trade Commission isn't required to rule specifically on underselling in injury investigations -- it only needs to consider it, the Court of International Trade said last week. CIT also said overselling of a product by importers does not necessarily mean domestic producers’ prices haven't been impacted.