The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally found that steel plate cost fluctuations in the production of utility scale wind towers were unrelated to the physical characteristics of the finished wind towers, antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While Commerce said its decision to weight-average Dongkuk's reported steel plate costs for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) was needed to "mitigate the cost differences unrelated to the product physical characteristics," Dongkuk said this approach was not backed by enough evidence (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).
The Court of International Trade substituted its own judgment for the Commerce Department's when it overruled the agency's rejection of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales as third country sales in an AD review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).
Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.
A domestic steel company is challenging the Commerce Department's finding in a countervailing duty administrative review that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit. CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. also argued in its complaint at the Court of International Trade that Commerce was required verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).
The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).
The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must review a three-judge panel's decision finding that China Custom Manufacturing Inc.'s solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. The exporter said that full court rehearing is needed to "secure and maintain uniformity" of the appellate court's prior decision regarding the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: