Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit at the Court of International Trade invoked three court decisions -- two from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- in a Nov. 9 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., said the cases were discussed during the hearing on the issue held at the trade court (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by selecting Romania as the surrogate country for China in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum, Baotou Alcha Aluminum and Alcha International Holdings argued in a Nov. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Bulgaria is both economically comparable to China and has significant production of the subject merchandise, making the selection of Romania illegal, the plaintiffs said. The complaint also objects to Commerce's selection of financial statements, use of partial adverse facts available over raw material consumption, double remedies adjustment and surrogate distance of North American inland train freight (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum v. U.S., CIT #22-00292).
A group of Chinese exporters filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China. The parties object to Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and the benchmark for the sale of primary aluminum for less than adequate remuneration (Yinbang Clad Material Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00291) (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed four tariff classification cases brought by importer Continental Automotive Systems, in a Nov. 3 order. The actions concerned the classification of nitrous oxide sensors or exhaust sensors. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9027.10.20 (1.2% in 2016, 0.8% in 2017). Continental said it instead should have been classified under subheading 9026.80.20, free of duty. Continental filed the stipulation of dismissal without explanation as to why the cases were tossed (Continental Automotive Systems v. United States, CIT #s 17-00106, 17-00263, 18-00096, 18-00237).
Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).