Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD moved to withdraw its case seeking to recover nearly 550 pounds of hemp detained by CBP. Filing at the U.S.District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the company said that since 16.5 months had elapsed since the seizure, the hemp's value has deteriorated so much that the continued litigation of the case will cost more than the shipment is worth. "For this expense-based reason, and for this reason alone, We CBD hereby withdraws its Verified Claim," the brief said (U.S. v. Approximately 548.22 Pounds of Hemp Detained from We CBD on November 8, 2020, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00267).
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "bears directly on, and fully supports" plaintiffs Wilmar Trading's, Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's and Wilmar Oleo North America's arguments in an antidumping duty case over whether a particular market situation exists, the plaintiffs said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The opinion, Nexteel Co. v. U.S., set up a bright line rule over how Commerce can use its PMS authority that cuts against the PMS determination made by Commerce in the antidumping duty matter contested by the plaintiffs, the notice said (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade partially remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a March 24 confidential opinion. The U.S. trade group Wind Tower Trade Coalition brought the case to argue in favor of an adverse facts available rate for an exporter. According to the coalition's complaint, the plaintiff challenged Commerce's decision to rely on respondent CS Wind's South Korean affiliate's sales revenue for wind towers as the denominator in the subsidy calculations rather than CS Wind's own sales revenue. The coalition also said that Commerce erred in relying on CS Wind's alleged contradictory reporting on the country of origin and supplies for its steel plate inputs when calculating a subsidy rate for the Import Duty Exemptions on Imports of Raw Materials for Exporting Goods program (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).
The Court of International Trade should not grant the Commerce Department's motion to extend the deadline to file remand results in an antidumping duty case, given the agency's mismanagement of the remand period, exporter SeAH Steel Corporation said in a March 24 brief. If the court does grant Commerce's motion, however, the time should only be extended for two business days plus one business hour -- the same time Commerce gave SeAH to file comments on the agency's remand. SeAH dubbed Commerce's conduct "egregious" and an expression of its "failure to consult in good faith" over the remand schedule (Stupp Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #15-00334).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
DOJ is again arguing that it can file counterclaims in Court of International Trade classification cases -- even after more than four years into a case. Days after defending its counterclaim in another denied protest case involving importer Cyber Power (see 2203180042), DOJ is now arguing that delays by another importer in a separate case, Second Nature, allow it to bring a counterclaim despite the time elapsed (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00271).
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "critical" to an antidumping duty case brought by exporter SeAH Steel Corporation, defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The recent Federal Circuit opinion held that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea (see 2203110044). While the appellate court's decision upheld the trade court's ruling that the PMS determination was not justified, the court used different reasoning that U.S. Steel finds crucial to its case (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade sustained all of the Commerce Department's positions in a countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, spurning a slew of litigants in the case ranging from the Canadian government to a U.S. wind tower trade group. In the March 18 opinion made public March 23, Judge Gary Katzmann sided with Commerce on all five issues under contention.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: