The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Meyer Corporation will appeal a Court of International Trade decision (see 2302090053) denying the use of first sale on Meyer's cookware imports, the company said in a notice. The case concerns first sale treatment of sets of imported pots and pans from a Thai producer and Chinese middleman related to Meyer (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
The Court of International Trade should reject a Commerce Department Section 129 determination on ripe olives from Spain that continued to apply countervailing duties for subsidies to upstream raw olives despite an underlying World Trade Organization ruling to the contrary, a Spanish industry association and two foreign growers and exporters of olives argued in a Feb. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., CIT # 23-00039).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department stood by its usage of financial statements in an antidumping duty review on mattresses from Vietnam in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade Feb. 23. Following a remand by Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce continued to determine that the financial data it used was complete and publicly available and continued to use that information to derive surrogate financial ratios, leaving the AD rate for plaintiff Ashley Furniture at 144.92% (Ashley Furniture Industries, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00283).
The Commerce Department in Feb. 23 remand results reversed course "under respectful protest" on a 26.5% subsidy rate it calculated for land provision by Indian national authorities in its countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00120).
Requiring all actions needed to implement a trade agreement to be specifically delegated by Congress to federal agencies would interfere with Fast Track Authority by effectively negating assurances to negotiating partners that Congress will implement the provisions as agreed to by the United States during the negotiation of the trade agreement, plaintiff-appellants, including the Canadian government, argued in a Feb. 22 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber Internaitonal Trade Investigatoins or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
Exporter Evraz Inc. moved to dismiss its own antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 22 notice of dismissal. The case concerns the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. Evraz moved to dismiss the case under CIT's rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says that the plaintiff can dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #23-00012).
U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
CBP should remand and terminate an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found CEK Group evaded an antidumping duty order because the underlying allegation was insufficient, not containing information required to find a reasonable suspicion of evasion of an antidumping duty order, CEK argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (CEK Group LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00082).