The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled March 31 that Chinese exporter T.T. International is entitled to judgment on its claims of unjust enrichment against BMP International and its U.S. affiliate relating to the sale of refrigerants, disposable cylinders and other products exported from China. Judge Charlene Honeywell sent the case to trial to determine the total amount of damages but also ruled that T.T. is due nearly $1 million from the defendants as that amount is uncontested (T.T. International Co. v. BMP International, M.D. Florida #8:19-2044).
The Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to antidumping duty adminstrative review respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the agency failed to notify the respondent that there was a deficiency in its responses, Meihua said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of using AFA, Commerce hit Meihua with a 154.07% dumping margin -- a rate dubbed "draconian" by the plaintiffs (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00069).
Though the Court of International Trade ruled April 1 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it failed in its final tariff notices to publicly connect the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 comments it received with the tariff decisions it made (see 2204010061), the three-judge panel absolved the agency of APA wrongdoing amid plaintiffs’ allegations it ran sloppy rulemakings.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission didn't establish a connection between imports and injury to domestic industry in its antidumping duty investigations on mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam and a countervailing duty investigation on mattresses from China, an importer challenging the determinations said in a March 27 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. The ITC failed to establish that material injury to the domestic industry was “by reason of the subject imports” as required by the statute, CVB said in the brief (CVB v. United States, CIT #21-00288).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions filed under the court's "residual" jurisdiction since it is not a novel issue and claims can be pursued under Section 1581(c), the antidumping jurisdiction, DOJ said in an April 4 brief (J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential opinion April 4 remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In a letter following the opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to release the public version of the opinion on April 12, giving the litigants a chance review any confidential information. Per the case's complaint, the plaintiff, exporter Risen Energy Co., challenged Commerce's surrogate value for silver paste, the agency's calculation of the financial ratios and the pick for primary surrogate country, among other things (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03743).
The Court of International Trade should not stay proceedings in an anti-circumvention inquiry challenge because, contrary to the U.S.'s contention, a case currently on appeal will not "dictate" the outcome of the case, plaintiffs HLDS (B) Steel and HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. said in an April 4 reply brief. Unique elements of the case brought by the plaintiffs undercut DOJ's claim that the unrelated appeal will resolve the matter at hand, the brief said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a case brought by Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD contesting CBP's seizure of over 3,000 pounds of hemp. In the March 31 order, Judge Frank Whitney said that We CBD's claims were barred by sovereign immunity or moot (We CBD v. United States, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00115).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: