The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s motion to alter or amend the court's judgment so that the court may interpret Italian law since Pirelli cannot show that there were errors or irregularities in the ruling, the U.S. claimed in a reply brief. The government added that even if the trade court were to consider the evidence Pirelli is looking to add to the record, the motion fails "because it is not the role of this Court to make factual determinations with regard to foreign law in Commerce’s stead" (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00115).
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation officially filed on May 12 their notice of appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision upholding President Donald Trump's tariff action on China. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT had agreed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The Court of International Trade canceled an oral argument that had been set for June 6 in an antidumping duty case that revolves around the Commerce Department's decision not to treat Indonesia as being at the same level of economic development as Vietnam during the surrogate country selection process in an AD administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The Catfish Farmers of America also argued against a byproduct offset granted for respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. Judge M. Miller Baker instead ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the evidence cited in the briefing related to the byproduct offset issue. Baker said "the meaning and significance of that evidence is unclear to the court." The briefs may not exceed 2,500 words and must be filed within 21 days (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department drew impossible conclusions with its adverse facts used in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from France, relying on likely sales prices in place of production costs, counsel for Dillinger France said during May 10 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Dillinger France v. U.S., CIT # 17-00159).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty scope case in which the court said exporter China Custom Manufacturing's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusions from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2303020037). CCM unsuccessfully filed for a rehearing of the opinion, arguing that the court needed to look at the case again to ensure uniformity of the appellate court's prior decisions on the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
Byungmin Chae filed a petition May 9 for a rehearing of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that landed him one question shy of passing the customs broker exam he took in April 2018. The multiple choice question asked which mail articles are not subject to CBP examination or inspection (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. # 22-2017).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted exporter SeAH Steel's motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test, which is used to root out "masked" dumping. Recently, the Court of International Trade upheld Commerce's explanations of its use of the test in response to questions raised by the Federal Circuit (see 2302270049) (SeAH Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1657).