No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available when it decided to countervail the Chinese Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) in its second administrative review of the countervailing duty order on truck and bus tires from China, DOJ argued in a May 22 response to respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co.'s (GRT's) motion for judgment (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).
Canadian Exporter Revives Dismissed Complaint Against Commerce's Cash Deposit Instructions on Appeal
The Court of International Trade should not have dismissed a case involving Commerce's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada for lack of jurisdiction, J.D. Irving said in its May 22 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1652).
Claims made by importer Aspects Furniture International that questioned CBP evidence in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation lack merit, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The bedroom furniture importer “advances numerous arguments that quibble with credibility findings and overlook detailed explanations provided by Customs," the government said following a remand proceeding at the trade court (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).
Any plaintiff in the massive Section 301 litigation looking to dismiss their case must comply with the court's rules to file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the case, the Court of International Trade said in a text-only order. The court clarified that this rule, USCIT Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), applies in the present action since the U.S. filed a Master Answer in the overarching test case, meaning the answer is considered to be filed in each Section 301 case "now pending or hereafter filed" in the court. Certain companies have begun dismissing their challenges to the China tariffs following the trade court's ruling that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not violate the law when implementing them (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer DSM Food Specialties USA's voluntary bid to dismiss its case challenging the classification of its CaroCare beta-carotene in 30% oil suspension form. The company filed suit in 2005 to argue that the imports should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.000, free of duty, rather than subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4% (DSM Food Specialties USA v. United States, CIT # 05-00043).
Importer DS Services on May 19 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a case it brought challenging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's decision not to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even after the only opposing party on record withdrew its opposition comments. The company argued USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to both explain its decision and to back it with substantial evidence. USTR then requested a voluntary remand to reconsider (see 2209010023) but stuck by its decision in its December remand results (see 2212150043). DS Services declined to comment on the dismissal request (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00157).
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument in its suit on the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products. Seneca said that oral argument is "appropriate" since resolution of the matter is "important to Seneca and its business operations" and "presents important questions about the manner in which Commerce administers the Section 232 tariff exclusion process as a whole." Oral argument would allow for a "deeper analysis" of the key issues in the proceeding, the importer said. The government took no position on the motion (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Commerce Department’s determination that the South Korean government did not subsidize Hyundai Steel by providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) was correct and the government-provided cost data was not "tainted," the South Korean government said in a May 19 motion at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00170).