The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and the relevant antidumping duty petitioner "fail to understand or simply ignore" key Court of International Trade precedent which says that the Commerce Department has to look at the factual distinction between scenarios where Chinese government-controlled companies had a majority interest in the respondent and where they had a minority interest, Pirelli Tyre Co. argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. Telling the trade court that Commerce's decision to deny Pirelli separate rate status was both illegal and unsupported by substantial evidence, the exporter argued that both the U.S. and the AD petitioner also failed to understand past precedent establishing that Commerce's "beholden theory" must be linked to specific evidence (Pirelli Tyre v. United States, CIT #20-00115).
Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).
Excavators are not backhoes or similar construction equipment and counterweights designed specifically for excavators are not subject to Section 301 steel tariffs, Norca argued in a Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Engineered Products v. United States, CIT #21-00305).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases in a series of orders on Nov. 1 and 2. One case, filed by Incase Design Group, concerned the classification of sports armband cell phone holders, with the plaintiff vying for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.99.90. No explanation was given for the dismissal. The second action, brought by Conrad Sales Group, concerned the classification of frozen tilapia filets, and was dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. The third case, brought by Tali Corp., concerned the classification of glassware and also was dropped due to a lack of prosecution.
The Korean Emissions Trading System (KETS) conferred a countervailable benefit to countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the U.S. argued in a Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The South Korean government foregoes revenue when it allocated certain business sectors, and by extension, Hyundai, an additional 3% of Korean Allowance Units (KAUs) to offset carbon emissions, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00029).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 order deactivated U.S. Steel Corp.'s recently filed appeal over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. U.S. Steel filed the appeal amid a spat over a motion from plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. to reconsider the court's opinion. Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file an appeal runs from the order disposing of the last remaining motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1109).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s port rights at the North Incheon Harbor do not let it use the port free of charge, making the Commerce Department's decision to countervail the port rights illegal, the respondent argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. and CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. "misrepresent" the nature of Hyundai's port rights since it is not allowed to use the port free of charge and merely gets certain fees to help recoup its costs from building the port, the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00304).