The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 order stayed a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department brought by Amsted Rail Co. involving its former counsel, pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Gary Katzmann said that resolution of the related case will likely be controlling on the issues in the present action (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
A case involving the appraisal and correct tariff payments on six large stamping presses for automobile manufacturing has concluded in mediation, with all issues settled, according to a Feb 28 mediation report (Aida-America v. U.S., CIT # 18-00215).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 24 denied plaintiff Norca Industrial's motion to reconsider the trade court's order staying proceedings of an Enforce and Protect Act case pending resolution of a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the order after holding a status conference the same day (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).
The Commerce Department wrongly denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products despite a lack of domestic supply, Seneca Foods Corporation said in its Feb. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion challenges eight decisions by Commerce denying Seneca’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs for tin mill products consisting of steel (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Feb. 28 in a case in which it upheld the Commerce Department's finding that it had enough industry support to start antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India. The appellate court said that Commerce legally held that the term "producer" didn't include quartz surface product fabricators and that the agency backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via the six-factor production-related activities test (see 2301050044) (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1077).
The Court of International Trade should grant the government's motion to reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's use of a transaction-specific margin for an adverse facts available rate it assigned to an antidumping duty respondent, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a Feb. 27 response (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Commerce Department unlawfully failed to adjust non-selected companies' cash deposit and assessment rates to account for export subsidy offsets in an antidumping duty review, an association of Indian producers and exports of quartz surface products said in a Feb. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry v. U.S., CIT # 23-00026).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative erred when it decided not to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even though the only party in opposition to the exclusion subsequently withdrew its comments, DS Services of America said in its Feb. 27 filing on the remand results at the Court of International Trade (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00157).
The Court of International Trade’s recent tariff classification decision on Cyber Power’s uninterruptible power supplies “may be a meaningful reset of the law of substantial transformation,” moving the analysis back to a comparison between parts and finished components after a period of focus on essence or critical components, customs lawyer Larry Friedman said in a Feb. 27 blog post.