The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Allegheny Technologies Inc. was granted refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on various entries following court-annexed mediation at the Court of International Trade, according to an April 13 stipulated judgment from the court. The case is the second of its kind to result in refunds for Section 232 duties paid following an initial challenge to the Commerce Department's denial of duty exclusion requests (Allegheny Technologies v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).
Lithionics Battery and its founder and owner Steven Tartaglia violated the law by falsely claiming their battery and battery module products were made in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission said in an April 12 complaint in a Florida district court. By doing so, the company and its founder violated the Made in the USA Labeling Rule, the complaint said (United States v. Lithionics Battery LLC, M.D. Fla. #8:22-00868). The case marks the first enforcement action under the agency's new labeling rules (see 2107010077), the agency said.
The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises the right to intervene in a challenge to a countervailing duty review. Although the company requested the Commerce Department open the review, it "sat on the sidelines" during the proceeding, Judge M. Miller Baker said in the opinion. "Commerce's regulations ... require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up."
Companies have the right to judicially challenge an antidumping duty investigation's final determination even if it is subject to a suspension agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a series of four opinions on April 14. The court issued the opinions together as they all pertain to the same antidumping investigation on Mexican tomatoes. While the appellate court sent the cases back establishing jurisdiction for the claims against the AD investigation's final determination, the court did dismiss some claims against the termination of a prior suspension agreement and the new suspension agreement.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department should not have tapped Malaysia as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., said in an April 7 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants said that after the Court of International Trade invalidated Commerce's basis for picking Malaysia, the agency "advanced meritless bases" to keep its pick and that Romania figures to be the better choice (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1298).
The Commerce Department's decision not to grant exporter Ningbo Qixin a separate rate in an antidumping duty matter for not having any sales during the period of review "is logically inconsistent" since the agency is supposed to then rescind the antidumping review, the exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 12 opening brief. Ningbo Qixin also argued that the Court of International Trade improperly denied the appellant's motion to file new factual information out of time since "extenuating circumstances" warranted another shot to submit the information (Canadian Solar, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2162).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department said a South Korean sewerage fees program isn't countervailable, on remand from the Court of International Trade, dropping countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel's CVD rate to 0.50%. After learning more about the program, Commerce said Hyundai properly qualified for a reduction in its sewerage fees pursuant to the laws of South Korea and said this reduction wasn't received only by Hyundai (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).