The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not grant a stay of proceedings in a lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's particular market situation in an antidumping duty sales-below-cost test because the defendants seeking the stay haven't shown they're likely to succeed in the case, plaintiff-appellees Dong-A Steel Co. and Kukje Steel Co. said in a Feb. 14 brief. A trio of defendant-appellants -- Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products -- had requested a stay while the Federal Circuit wraps up another case wherein Welspun Tubular requested a full court rehearing over an identical question, but the Federal Circuit is unlikely to grant the rehearing or overturn its earlier decision, Dong-A and Kukje said (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California district court ruling dismissing a case brought by investors in U.S. semiconductor developer Qualcomm over an alleged scheme by the American company to illegally block Singapore firm Broadcom's bid to take over Qualcomm. Investors had argued Qualcomm had improperly lobbied lawmakers and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. to block the acquisition.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A customs broker license test taker filed suit at the Court of International Trade after two appeals of her final score on the Customs Broker License Examination failed to result in a passing grade. Filing the case without an attorney, Shuzhen Zhong wants the court to review the six questions she appealed to CBP, of which she only received credit for one upon reconsideration. Zhong took particular issue with CBP's getting both her address and gender wrong when returning the results of her appeal (Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).
The Commerce Department reasonably derived the separate rate respondents' dumping margin in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging the mandatory respondents' zero percent and adverse facts available rates, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Celtic Co. and Taraca Pacific, the coalition said that Commerce properly relied on the information laid out in the petition to derive the rates since it was already vetted by Commerce as part of the pre-initiation phase of the investigation (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00002).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska permitted an amicus brief to be filed in a case brought by two shipping companies contesting hefty Jones Act penalties over their shipments of fish from Alaska to the East Coast of the U.S. The brief from logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings was permitted despite opposition from the Department of Justice, which argued that the brief does not raise any new issues (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the entry of appearance for plaintiff-appellee PT. Kenertec Power System's counsel was not in compliance with the court's rules. In particular, the court said that the contact information for Daniel Robert Wilson and Kang Woo Lee of Arnold & Porter "does not match the information associated with the user's account." Up-to-date contact information is needed for the two attorneys, the court said. The case is an appeal by the Wind Tower Trade Coalition over a Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's decision to ultimately find no countervailable subsidization in a countervailing duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from Indonesia (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1408).
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued its final judgment in a case which found Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation, along with other companies, guilty of False Claims Act violations related to not paying antidumping duties. The final judgment comes after the final jury verdict in the case. Sigma was found liable for over $24.2 million in damages and civil monetary penalties exceeding $1.8 million.
The Commerce Department excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings because the Court of International Trade left no alternative, Commerce said in a Feb. 7 brief. Responding to U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions arguments in a reply brief at CIT, Commerce said that even though the court initially agreed that the plain scope language included Star Pipe's flanges in the AD order, it said this was insufficient to include the flanges (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).