The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 26 order allowed Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing, one of the plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation, to withdraw its motion to transfer interest in the case to Hitachi Astemo Americas. Hitachi Astemo Americas said that it wanted to withdraw the motion so it could amend its complaint and other relevant documents to reflect its merger with Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing. In July, Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing assigned all its interests in its case to Hitachi Astemo Americas, making it the real party in interest in Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's case, the companies said in their original motion to transfer interest (see 2210140044) (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
Steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. should not be allowed to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp.over the Commerce Department's denial of an exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, DOJ said in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit settled this issue in its California Steel Indus. v. U.S. decision (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
CBP did not violate an importer's due process rights by requiring protests for retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties on imported pressure switches, the government said in an Oct. 25 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124). The brief is in support of DOJ's July motion for dismissal claiming lack of jurisdiction and timeliness.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Steel Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review, the defendant-intervenor said in an Oct. 25 notice of appeal. The company will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade's March dismissal of a case seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China was correct because the importer properly revoked its statute of limitations waiver, Katana Racing said in an Oct. 24 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Court of International Trade is set to have an in-person oral argument on Oct. 26 about the U.S.'s submission of a "consent" motion for leave to add a document to the administrative record but which actually did not have the consent of the plaintiffs, led by Grupo Simec. Judge Stephen Vaden will preside over the hearing to determine whether consent was given to the motion by the plaintiffs (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping duties on steel threaded rod to strike pin anchors imported from China, Midwest Fastener said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Midwest Fastener v. U.S., CIT #21-00535). The complaint contests the denial by CBP of Midwest Fastener's protest concerning the assessment of antidumping duties on one entry of strike pin anchors imported from China through the Port of Chicago valued at nearly $17,000. At liquidation, CBP assessed AD at the rate of 206% under case number A-570-932, which covers steel threaded rod from China. Midwest Fastener claims the strike pin anchors do not fall within the scope of the case and were therefore incorrectly assessed. The company has asked the court to order the port director in Chicago to reliquidate the entry without the assessment of AD and to refund the duties assessed on the entry, plus interest.
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping duties on steel threaded rod to strike pin anchors imported from China, Midwest Fastener said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Midwest Fastener v. U.S., CIT #21-00535). The complaint contests the denial by CBP of Midwest Fastener's protest concerning the assessment of antidumping duties on one entry of strike pin anchors imported from China through the Port of Chicago valued at nearly $17,000. At liquidation, CBP assessed AD at the rate of 206% under case number A-570-932, which covers steel threaded rod from China. Midwest Fastener claims the strike pin anchors do not fall within the scope of the case and were therefore incorrectly assessed. The company has asked the court to order the port director in Chicago to reliquidate the entry without the assessment of AD and to refund the duties assessed on the entry, plus interest.