The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Janssen Ortho and the government have signed a settlement agreement regarding the duty-free treatment of an active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen Ortho, according to an Oct. 17 motion asking the Court of International Trade to dismiss related cases. The Oct. 14 settlement agreement resolved all outstanding claims in the three cases and applied the Court’s final judgment from Janssen Ortho, LLC v. U.S., case number 13-00296, to all the relevant entries and drawback claims. In that case, the court ruled that darunavir ethanolate is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 2935.00.60 and eligible for duty-free treatment. The settlement preceded an Oct. 17 deadline ordered by CIT Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, which would have required the company to refile its 13-00296 complaint if the parties could not come to a settlement agreement. Neither Janssen nor DOJ responded to requests for comment on the settlement.
Importer Advantus Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking to obtain Section 301 tariff refunds at the Court of International Trade. The case was previously stayed pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. U.S. In these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the trade court's ruling that a protest was needed to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Both the Federal Circuit and CIT said that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties (Advantus Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00055).
The Commerce Department properly applied to antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems total adverse facts available, the U.S. said in response to Hyundai over Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. The agency should not have hit the respondent with partial AFA, as Hyundai argued, since the missing service-related revenues (SRRs) on the record are not a limited and discrete category of information and since Hyundai's omission of one U.S. sale is significant, given the limited number of sales, the U.S. said (Hyundai Electric & Energy System Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00108).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Wire rod importer Kiswire asked the Court of International Trade to consolidate two cases, in an Oct. 14 motion. Similar facts "surround all of the entries" and the two complaints stem from the same agency decision on similar protests, Kiswire said. Both complaints challenge the denial of protests seeking antidumping duty refunds on wire rod from South Korea (see 2210130066). Kiswire said that CBP refused to refund the cash deposits and asserted that the entries were deemed liquidated at a date that would make the protests untimely filed. The cases proposed for consolidation present identical counts and promote "economy of judicial resources" and "avoid duplication of effort" if consolidated, Kiswire said. The government has indicated it doesn't consent to consolidation at this time and intends to file a response to the motion, Kiswire said (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00181; Kiswire Inc. and Kiswire Pine Bluff Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00285).
The U.S. in an Oct. 13 motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked for 30 more days to file an amicus brief in a case over whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The U.S. originally failed to appear in the case, leading to the appellate court inviting the government to file an amicus brief and address whether Commerce has the authority to engage in expedited CVD reviews (see 2206100045) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).
The Court of International Trade should transfer interest in a case contesting the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs filed by Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing to Hitachi Astemo Americas, counsel for Hitachi Astemo Americas said in a motion for transfer of interest. The U.S. consented to the transfer. Both Hitachi Astemo Ohio Manufacturing's and Hitachi Astemo America's cases are under the massive Section 301 litigation. 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 motion said (Hitachi Astemo Americas v. United States, CIT #20-00973).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP has unlawfully withheld antidumping duty refunds on tire cord quality wire rod from South Korea for years after the Commerce Department rescinded the order and required refunds, Kiswire Inc. (KI) said in an Oct. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00285).