A company's information shared with counsel jointly representing another firm is not treated as confidential and "cannot serve as a basis for a conflict claim," counsel for defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) cannot claim that the coalition's counsel -- led by Daniel Pickard of Buchanan Ingersoll -- violated the D.C. Bar's rules of ethics, Pickard said (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 28 order sent back the Commerce Department's rejection of late-filed antidumping questionnaire answers, finding the agency abused its discretion. While Judge Jane Restani said Commerce would likely be found to have reasonably rejected respondent Ajmal Steel's request for more time given COVID-19-related complications, the judge held that the agency abused its discretion by giving itself extra time to carry out the review but not giving the respondent additional time. Ajmal's delay clocked in at less than two hours while Commerce's consisted of one 50-day and one 60-day tolling period.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, in a Federal Register notice published Oct. 26, asked for applications from people who would like to serve on panels that review final determinations in antidumping or countervailing duty proceedings and amendments to AD/CVD statutes of a USMCA Party. These people would be on the roster from April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. Applications are due by Nov. 30, and can be submitted at www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2022-0015.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 27 on AD/CVD proceedings:
CBP announced that it has opened a formal Enforce and Protect Act investigation into whether Zinus evaded an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China and has imposed interim measures, according to an Oct. 24 notice. The investigation was launched on July 19 following allegations by CVB that Zinus used general product descriptions and misclassified Chinese wooden bedroom furniture as metal furniture in order to enter the furniture as uncovered merchandise.
ITC Can't Claim Exhaustion Defense Given Release of BPI, Plaintiffs Argue in Row Over Former Counsel
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Oct. 26 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Steel Corp. will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review, the defendant-intervenor said in an Oct. 25 notice of appeal. The company will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).