The consent of a foreign manufacturer does not overcome the Privacy Act of 1974's ban on disclosure of the confidential Enforce and Protect Act record, the U.S. said in response to importer Richmond International Forest Products' motion to compel. Richmond's motion does not qualify for disclosure since the company is requesting the entire confidential EAPA record, which has data submitted by parties other than the consenting foreign manufacturer, LB Wood, the government said (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00318).
Oil country tubular goods exporter Husteel Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it does not intend to participate in an appeal over the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping. Husteel made the declaration in response to the court's notice to the company regarding its counsel's entry of appearance and certificate of interest. The appeal was recently reactivated following a Court of International Trade decision upholding the agency's use of the d test (see 2303070042) (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily suspended a False Claims Act case over whether Sigma Corp. and other companies failed to pay antidumping duties on pipe fitting imports. The court ordered the case "held in abeyance" because of pending cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade did not direct the Commerce Department to account for compliance costs incurred by countervailing duty respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen in the agency's subsidy calculations, the U.S. argued in defense of its decision not to consider BGH's costs of compliance with Germany's Electricity Tax Act and Energy Act Act (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The statute of limitations for collection of duties under a bond expires six years after the relevant entries are liquidated, surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said in its response to a customs penalty complaint from the government. Aegis disputed the U.S. claim that the calculation of delinquency runs from the billing of the subject entry (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Court of International Trade should consolidate two classification cases concerning imported incontinence apparel, medical textile contractor Viecura told the court in a March 23 motion. Consolidation would "promote a speedy, just, and inexpensive resolution of cases" and is preferable to the designation of a test case because "the sole issue in these two cases is the same," Viecura said. It also would prevent the need to litigate two cases, while the court resolves the sole issue, Viecura said (Viecura v. U.S., CIT #s 21-00154, -00546).
The Commerce Department committed a "clear legal error" by failing to follow the statute and its own prior practice by using acquisition prices paid by antidumping duty respondent Nexco as opposed to actual cost data from the beekeepers themselves for the cost of production in an AD investigation on raw honey from Argentina, Nexco argued in a March 24 reply brief. The respondent said there is nothing "pragmatic" about disregarding the actual costs of making the merchandise under review in favor of acquisition prices, as the government claims (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).
A German steel producer cannot claim that the Commerce Department used adverse inferences in selecting the producer's own submitted information, DOJ said in a March 23 response brief at the Court of International Trade defending Commerce's third remand redetermination on an antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany. DOJ said Commerce complied with the court's order to further explain the department's use of Dillinger’s normal books and records as facts otherwise available (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.