The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Users of the U.S. judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (Pacer) system could see full refunds of fees paid to access federal court documents, according to a settlement agreement among three nonprofits and the federal judiciary submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The terms of the settlement set aside $125 million to establish a common fund to automatically reimburse more than 400,000 Pacer class users up to $350 for any fees paid April 21, 2010, to May 31, 2018. Users who paid over $350 during that period will receive a pro rata share of the remaining settlement funds, the proposed settlement said (National Veterans Legal Services Program v. U.S., D.D.C. #16-00745).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after the Court of International Trade struck down the Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, importer Canadian Solar (USA) argued in a complaint at CIT. Given that the trade court found the tariff revocation illegal, CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels, the brief said. The duties "are substantial and impose a continuing financial burden," Canadian Solar argued (Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00295).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 6 notice dismissed a customs case filed by Grobest Global Service over frozen tilapia fillets entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.0000. The importer filed the case to contest CBP's assessment of 10% Section 301 duties on the fillets, arguing that the entries qualify for an exclusion from the duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. Grobest filed a notice of dismissal without an explanation (Grobest Global Service v. United States, CIT #20-03827).
Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case regarding the constructed value calculation in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, according to an Oct. 6 notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade in August found the Commerce Department justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company (see 2208090008) (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT #15-00214).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. plans to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. The Federal Circuit granted an order on Oct. 5 giving the government 60 more days to file the rehearing motion. In the case, originally brought by YC Rubber Co., the Federal Circuit said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). 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 (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1489).