No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected customs broker license exam test-taker Byungmin Chae's petition for rehearing in his pro se case challenging the answers to a handful of questions on the April 2018 exam. Judges Pauline Newman, Sharon Prost and Kimberly Hughes rejected the petition in a per curiam order. After failing the exam initially, Chae appealed his results twice to CBP, once at the Court of International Trade and once at the Federal Circuit, leaving him just one question shy of a passing grade (see 2305100030). His rehearing bid centered on one question that was previously considered by the appellate court (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. # 22-2017).
Granting a government counterclaim that unfinished steel tubes are subject to Section 301 tariffs and imposing the additional duties would be an unconstitutional action by the Court of International Trade "imposing a tax solely based on judicial power," Maple Leaf Marketing argued in a May 12 brief at the Court of International Trade (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s motion to alter or amend the court's judgment so that the court may interpret Italian law since Pirelli cannot show that there were errors or irregularities in the ruling, the U.S. claimed in a reply brief. The government added that even if the trade court were to consider the evidence Pirelli is looking to add to the record, the motion fails "because it is not the role of this Court to make factual determinations with regard to foreign law in Commerce’s stead" (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00115).
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation officially filed on May 12 their notice of appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision upholding President Donald Trump's tariff action on China. The case was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT had agreed that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with Administrative Procedure Act requirements when it set lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
The Court of International Trade canceled an oral argument that had been set for June 6 in an antidumping duty case that revolves around the Commerce Department's decision not to treat Indonesia as being at the same level of economic development as Vietnam during the surrogate country selection process in an AD administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The Catfish Farmers of America also argued against a byproduct offset granted for respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. Judge M. Miller Baker instead ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the evidence cited in the briefing related to the byproduct offset issue. Baker said "the meaning and significance of that evidence is unclear to the court." The briefs may not exceed 2,500 words and must be filed within 21 days (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department drew impossible conclusions with its adverse facts used in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from France, relying on likely sales prices in place of production costs, counsel for Dillinger France said during May 10 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade (Dillinger France v. U.S., CIT # 17-00159).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: