The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondent Asia Pacific Fibers (APF) failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in its challenge of the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Given this failure, the U.S. had no chance to consider and address the issues raised by the respondent for the first time, the brief said. Further, the U.S. defended Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over APF's failure to supply "critical" supplementary information over the respondent's cost and sales data (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT #22-00007).
Importer Maple Leaf Marketing (MLM) filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 23 seeking duty-free treatment for its boronized steel tubing that was made in the U.S., exported to Canada for alteration, then brought back into the U.S. MLM said that its imports qualify for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9802.00.50. The importer further sought to clear its goods of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties since the products are of U.S. origin (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT #20-03839).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Sept. 23 in a case brought by Vicentin on the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Argentina. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price (see 2208020052). The court said that the agency's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans (Vicentin v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).
An importer’s contention that the date of discovery for statute of limitations purposes is the date the allegations of misconduct were submitted to CBP “exhibits a profound misunderstanding” of how government investigations work and of the concept of fraud, DOJ said in a Sept. 22 brief opposing the importer’s request for rehearing (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
No trade-related lawsuits have been filed since Sept. 21 at the Court of International Trade.
Personal protective equipment manufacturer defendants, led by Smart Glove Holdings, failed to disclose they were under investigation by CBP for using forced labor, leading to over $68.5 million in damages to protective equipment supplier Airboss Defense Group (ADG), ADG said in a Sept. 19 complaint. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ADG claimed that had it known about this investigation, it would not have agreed to source its gloves from Smart Glove and would have avoided the millions in charges, logistics costs and storage fees it incurred due to the imports being detained under a withhold release order (Airboss Defense Group v. Smart Glove Holdings, C.D. Calif. #2:22-06727).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S.'s reversal of its position by refusing to allow plaintiff Oman Fasteners to post bond for its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum liability "smacks of outright bad faith," Oman Fasteners argued in a Sept. 20 emergency motion to compel at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiff argued that the court should compel the U.S. to comply with an order it issued in April, otherwise the U.S. could "artificially inflate" the exporter's dumping margin in an ongoing antidumping proceeding, "permanently costing Oman Fasteners millions of dollars" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
Challenges to several Commerce Department actions around the antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico, and subsequent suspension agreements, have already been ruled on at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and should be denied, the government argued in a Sept. 20 motion to dismiss aspects of several complaints from Bioparques, a Mexican agriculture company. The Florida Tomato Exchange, a defendant-intervenor, made a supplementary motion to dismiss on Sept. 21 (Bioparques et al v. U.S., CIT # 19-00204).