The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. must pay more than $100,000 in unpaid duties on an entry of honey from China imported in 2002, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit, filed under Section 1582, echoes another case brought against Aegis that looks to collect duties on entries of garlic that liquidated in 2006 (see 2211010037). The surety in that case has argued that the statute of limitations has passed for the action, claiming that the U.S. has a six-year window to file such action that runs from the date of liquidation. The U.S. says that this window starts from when CBP makes a demand for payment (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping duty respondents' costs of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 23 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "in an analogous case, Hyundai Steel Co., made it illegal for Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when finding normal value based on home market sales, supporting the agency's removal of the adjustment in the present case.
The Commerce Department did not err in its scope ruling that found that two-ply hardwood plywood fell under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, the government said in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief asked the court to sustain the underlying scope ruling (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00049).
Fish importer Southern Cross Seafoods on Nov. 21 moved for an expedited briefing schedule and consideration of its case at the Court of International Trade concerning its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass. Southern Cross said that failure to expedite the case would deprive the importer of all its U.S. sales in the coming year as it is unable to import and sell Chilean sea bass until the embargo on its imports is lifted. Further, the fish imports are perishable goods, so Southern Cross said it needs a decision by March 2023 to have any meaningful relief (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 order denied customs broker test taker Byungmin Chae's motion for an oral argument in his case seeking credit on a select number of test questions. The court said that the appeal will be submitted on their briefs without oral argument (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, Fed. Cir. #22-2017).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 18 gave the U.S. more time to file a petition for rehearing in an antidumping duty case. In the case, the Federal Circuit found that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The court ruled that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language. The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate. The U.S. was previously given 60 more days to file the rehearing motion, and now has another 30, giving it until Jan. 11, 2023, to file a petition for rehearing (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).
The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in a Nov. 14 order granted a motion from plaintiffs in a Jones Act challenge for leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs -- the Offshore Marine Service Association, Shipbuilders Council of America and Capt. Paul Radtke -- challenged, among other things, CBP's "issuance of and failure to revoke twenty-five letter rulings," claiming that they departed from the Jones Act's requirements by allowing foreign vessels to ship merchandise between U.S. points if they also engage in ancillary activities not regulated by the act (Captain Paul Radtke, et al. v. CBP, D.C.C. #17-2412).
The Commerce Department did not "sufficiently" identify withheld information to justify of its use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff Kumar Industries argued in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to identify "a single document that was actually missing" to justify the use of AFA and also chose not to verify the information submitted by Kumar despite ample opportunity to do so, the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
No lawsuits have been filed at the Court of International Trade since Nov. 16.