Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 test plaintiffs and DOJ agree that plaintiffs’ comments on the Aug. 1 lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (see 2208020016) and a government response to those comments would aid the court’s evaluation of the remand results, the two sides said in a joint status report filed Aug. 15 in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the Court of International Trade. They propose that plaintiffs’ comments would be due Sept. 14 and DOJ’s response 30 days later, but the government says the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a reply to the government’s response, as plaintiffs want to do by Nov. 4, the report said. The sides also disagree on the page limits for any future filings, it said. Plaintiffs also are requesting oral argument on the remand results, but the government takes no position on the request.
The Commerce Department erred in a scope ruling regarding antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheets from China, importer Valeo argued to the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT #21-00581). The brief supports a March motion for judgment that challenged the ruling by Commerce that determined Valeo’s imported heat-treated T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders.
The International Trade Commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in an antidumping duty investigation on methionine from Spain and Japan, a Spanish exporter told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief that seeks to toss out the ITC's determination of material injury (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government notified the Court of International Trade that it has inadvertently liquidated bifacial solar panels following a CIT order in December that suspended liquidation. The government told the court that CBP is taking steps to correct the mistake and that it has communicated with the plaintiffs and non-parties affected by the liquidations.
Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating is properly classified in the tariff schedule as steel tubing, not insulating fittings, because testing shows the tubing does not meet a specific electrical resistance threshold, the government said in its Aug. 11 cross-motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, shouldn't be allowed reconsideration at the Court of International Trade following the dismissal of their case challenging the Commerce Department's failure to conduct verification in an antidumping duty investigation due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the government said in an Aug. 11 response motion (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion on administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236). AEFTC is challenging the results of the administrative review that reversed an earlier CBP finding that Kingtom Aluminio had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic (see 2208090018). AEFTC argued that the results of the administrative review "undermined the evidence collected at the on-site verification and accepted Kingtom’s proffered reconciliation of its production data," which CBP had previously rejected. AEFTC asked the court to remand the matter to CBP.
The Court of International Trade agreed with the government that a nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026 (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). In an Aug. 12 opinion, Judge Jane Restani ruled in favor of the government's March 8 cross-motion for summary judgment (see 2203140007).
A law firm representing a plaintiff in a classification case at the Court of International Trade says that its client has become unresponsive and will again ask the court for permission to withdraw its representation as counsel for Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd., according to an Aug. 11 status report at CIT (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03776). The firm, Rock Trade Law, has previously tried to withdraw its representation over alleged outstanding legal fees but Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, Rock Trade Law could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified (see 2207110070).