CBP properly denied customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae credit for questions 5, 27 and 33 of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 31 reply brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ went through each question, detailing why CBP's answer was the correct one and why Chae's preferred answer was errant (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 31 order dismissed a case challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the case, led by plaintiff Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa (CAADES), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that the appellants have the right to challenge the final determination even if it's subject to a suspension agreement, though it did toss many of the claims made against the determination (see 2204140067) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, CIT #19-00206).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 order stayed the consideration of the merits of plaintiff Environment One's claims in a case seeking to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions until the court settles the U.S.'s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DOJ moved to stay consideration of Environment One's claim its merchandise falls within the scope of the claimed exclusion, arguing the stay "would advance the interests of justice" and "could render litigation on the nature of plaintiff's imported merchandise to be unnecessary." Judge Mark Barnett agreed (Environment One v. U.S., CIT #22-00124).
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit corrected an error in a recent opinion, changing the listing for the lead attorney for some of the plaintiff-appellants. The appellate court issued the errata, listing Jonathan Stoel of Hogan Lovells as the lead attorney for appellants ITG Voma, Mayrun Tyre (Hong Kong), Sutong Tire Resources and YC Rubber (North America), instead of Nicholas Sparks. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026) (YC Rubber v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1489).
The U.S.'s rationale for hitting antidumping respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. with adverse facts available -- that the company did not respond to the best of its ability -- is "conclusory, superficial, and unsupported by record evidence," Ajmal argued in an Aug. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department ignored the entire record when denying one of Ajmal's questionnaire submissions and its extension request, and then applying AFA, since COVID-19 restrictions created an "extraordinary circumstance," and justified the late filing, the brief said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587).
The Commerce Department erred when it continued to rely on adverse facts available despite a remand order invalidating the agency’s original reasoning for the AFA rate, Cabinets To Go (CTG), a U.S. retail chain, said in its Aug. 29 comments filed to the Court of International Trade. CTG intervened in the challenge to a final determination from Commerce’s antidumping duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (Dalian Meisen Woodworking v. U.S., CIT # 20-00109) because the calculated rates of its own suppliers were based on AFA rates for Meisen.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Florida Tomato Exchange, plaintiff in a case challenging an antidumping duty suspension agreement, moved to voluntarily drop its case, in an Aug. 29 motion at the Court of International Trade. The case was stayed pending resolution of another similar challenge led by Jem D. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trade court's dismissal of the Jem D case, which included a challenge to the termination of the 2013 suspension agreement over imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico (The Florida Tomato Exchange v. United States, CIT #13-00148).
Three separate lawsuits at the Court of International Trade are challenging the results of the Commerce Department's eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. All three suits allege Commerce made errors in its calculations and choice of data, particularly its surrogate values, during the review.