The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 20 order dismissed a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Commerce originally tapped two mandatory respondents in the review, selecting Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals. The agency gave Datong Juqing a zero percent dumping rate while assigning Jilin Bright a $0.62 per kilogram dumping margin. The agency then assigned separate rate respondents the same $0.62/kg rate it gave to Jilin Bright (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #22-00335).
Under the Commerce Department's countervailing duty regulations, any subsidy on inputs dedicated to the downstream product must refer to subject merchandise, plaintiff Gujarat Fluorochemicals (GFL) argued in a Jan. 20 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said it would be "illogical" to apply the regulation to inputs mainly used to make non-subject merchandise since this interpretation "would create a broader subsidy than provided by the statute" (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).
Boronized steel tubes made in the U.S. are unfinished steel goods, not repaired articles, DOJ argued in a Jan. 20 counterclaim that is seeking $760,000 in unpaid duties at the Court of International Trade in a denied protest case filed by an importer (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).
The Court of International Trade dismissed a case contesting the International Trade Commission's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea for lack of prosecution (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00345). Plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca filed three other cases contesting the ITC's injury determination and the related antidumping duty investigation by the Department of Commerce (see 2301180047). Unlike the other cases, the Dec. 16 summons was never followed up on by the plaintiffs before it was dismissed by the court.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. held oral arguments on Jan. 17 over Turkish state-owned Halkbank's claims that the U.S. judicial system does not have the jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against foreign governments and their state-owned entities. Halkbank is attempting to shirk prosecution over its efforts to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The bank's arguments received a mixed reaction from the Supreme Court, with numerous justices expressing doubt over the plaintiff's claims that it is immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).
Russian exporter TMK Group on Jan. 20 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on the International Trade Commission's injury finding on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Russia that led to the imposition of a countervailing duty order on the goods. The three-count complaint challenges the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Russia with imports from Brazil, Mexico and South Korea; its analysis of South Korea's imports in the cumulation analysis; and its decision that material injury to the domestic industry was "by reason of imports" (TMK Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00346).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
United States Steel Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff denial after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected U.S. Steel's and other steel companies' motion to intervene in another exclusion challenge. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), the case should be dismissed. Counsel for appellee NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. government said that they do not oppose the motion (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).
The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).