The Commerce Department improperly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its primary fresh lemon supplier, leading to a de minimis rate for LDC, petitioner Ventura Coastal argued in its Aug. 3 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner said Commerce discussed only LDC's potential reliance on the supplier, whose name was redacted in the brief, but failed to consider the supplier's reliance on LDC, misapplying the legal standard (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 order assigned a case challenging the results of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands to Judge M. Miller Baker. Petitioner Giorgio Foods filed the suit in June claiming that Commerce illegally picked Germany as the third-country comparison market since none of the reasons the agency gave for picking the nation were supported by substantial evidence (see 2307240018). The result of the investigation was a de minimis rate for respondent Prochamp and the company's exclusion from the AD order (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Importer Eteng Technologies Aug. 2 moved to dismiss its customs suit at the Court of International Trade related to its shipments of backpacking tents. The company challenged CBP's classification of the tents under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6302.22.90, dutiable at 8.8%, claiming that they should be classified under subheading 6306.22.10, free of duty. John Peterson, counsel for Eteng, said in an email that he realized the duties were not paid before the case was filed, which would have led the suit being tossed for lack of jurisdiction (Eteng Technologies v. United States, CIT # 22-00167).
A recently concluded case at the Court of International Trade was a serious contest between the power of the court and the finality of liquidation, customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in an Aug. 2 blog post. The case at issue was Target v. U.S., in which Target attempted to reverse a reliquidation order on improperly liquidated ironing tables from China (see 2108160028). Reversing the order would "elevate the principle of finality" of liquidation over the power of the trade court, Judge Leo Gordon said in his July opinion (see 2307200049).
The Court of International Trade erred when it signed off on the Commerce Department's refusal to conduct a full administrative review of and apply adverse facts available to exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer despite issuing a questionnaire, importer Repwire and Jin Tiong said in an Aug. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit officially issued its order vacating and remanding the Court of International Trade's opinion upholding CBP's evasion finding for importer Royal Brush Manufacturing. The Aug. 1 order came a few days after the court's consequential opinion, which said CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation into the company (see 2307270038). The order remands the antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case so the agency can make the whole record available to the importer (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The U.S. will appeal a June Court of International Trade opinion upholding the Commerce Department's remand results in a suit on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The remand results dropped the presumption the Chinese government controlled exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. after the trade court questioned whether Commerce could disregard a mandatory respondent's own data in favor of the countrywide nonmarket economy rate (see 2305040061).
The Maritime Administration illegally approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT), which would be the largest offshore oil export terminal in the U.S., by not conducting analysis on "critical environmental harms and Congressional licensing requirements," conservation groups led by Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water argued in a reply brief. Responding to arguments made by the Department of Transportation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the conservation groups said the agency's request for deference in the case evades its "legal failings" (Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 5th Cir. # 23-60027).
The Commerce Department unlawfully relied on the Cohen's d test and incorrectly applied partial adverse facts to Indian exporter Garg Tube on remand in an antidumping duty case on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, Garg said in a July 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).
The U.S. asked for more time to file its reply to importer PrimeSource's writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in its case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. The government asked for another month, until Sept. 25, to complete its brief, explaining its response was delayed due to the "heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter." The brief is due Aug. 24.