Though the Court of International Trade ruled April 1 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it failed in its final tariff notices to publicly connect the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 comments it received with the tariff decisions it made (see 2204010061), the three-judge panel absolved the agency of APA wrongdoing amid plaintiffs’ allegations it ran sloppy rulemakings.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission didn't establish a connection between imports and injury to domestic industry in its antidumping duty investigations on mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam and a countervailing duty investigation on mattresses from China, an importer challenging the determinations said in a March 27 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. The ITC failed to establish that material injury to the domestic industry was “by reason of the subject imports” as required by the statute, CVB said in the brief (CVB v. United States, CIT #21-00288).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions filed under the court's "residual" jurisdiction since it is not a novel issue and claims can be pursued under Section 1581(c), the antidumping jurisdiction, DOJ said in an April 4 brief (J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential opinion April 4 remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In a letter following the opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to release the public version of the opinion on April 12, giving the litigants a chance review any confidential information. Per the case's complaint, the plaintiff, exporter Risen Energy Co., challenged Commerce's surrogate value for silver paste, the agency's calculation of the financial ratios and the pick for primary surrogate country, among other things (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03743).
The Court of International Trade should not stay proceedings in an anti-circumvention inquiry challenge because, contrary to the U.S.'s contention, a case currently on appeal will not "dictate" the outcome of the case, plaintiffs HLDS (B) Steel and HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. said in an April 4 reply brief. Unique elements of the case brought by the plaintiffs undercut DOJ's claim that the unrelated appeal will resolve the matter at hand, the brief said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a case brought by Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD contesting CBP's seizure of over 3,000 pounds of hemp. In the March 31 order, Judge Frank Whitney said that We CBD's claims were barred by sovereign immunity or moot (We CBD v. United States, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00115).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Kirrin Hough is no longer employed by the Commerce Department, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a notice withdrawing the attorney as co-counsel for the U.S. in an antidumping duty case. Since Hough's employment period with Commerce has ended, the attorney will no longer participate as counsel in the litigation, and Joshua Kurland will remain on as principal counsel, the notice said. The case concerns the AD investigation on biodiesel from Argentina in which exporter LDC Argentina challenged Commerce's move to redefine price adjustments to "disaggregate" the value actually agreed to by the buyer and the seller (see 2112130048) (Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).
A recent stipulated judgment in a case brought by North American Interpipe granting the importer refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties is relevant to six U.S. steel companies' court actions that are seeking to intervene in challenges to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials, the steel companies said. Filing a notice of supplemental authority to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the steel companies said that the settlement is "relevant to the parties' arguments concerning the potential for settlement of these actions" (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).