The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade denied pig farrowing crate importer Ikadan System USA's motion for an extension of time to file its monition for judgment but stayed the case until the court sorts through the importer's motion to supplement the record. Ikadan requested the extension since it found out that certain items weren't in the administrative record. Instead of extending the briefing schedule as the plaintiff requested, Judge Leo Gordon stayed the briefing in the case until the matter is sorted out. In response, the U.S. filed a motion stating its lack of opposition to Ikadan's bid to supplement the record despite not conferring with the Justice Department. Ikadan then filed a confidential brief giving the court the missing information (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Commerce Department's decision to find that the South Korean government provided electricity below cost for certain tariff classes but still say that electricity provision conferred a non-measurable benefit is illegal, U.S. steel company Nucor Corporation said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).
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).
German exporter BGH Edestahl Siegen's claim that its higher costs preempt any countervailability findings don't comport with U.S. countervailing duty law, U.S. manufacturer Ellwood City Forge said in a March 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment, Ellwood said CVD statute and the Commerce Department's regulations don't dismiss subsidy programs that alleviate high costs that may be high due to government policies themselves (BGH Edestahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT #21-00080).
A Texas U.S. district court found that Chinese telecommunications company ZTE Corp. committed visa fraud to get employees in the U.S. Making the determination during a hearing on whether to revoke ZTE's probation for violating sanctions on Iran, Judge Ed Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas said that the court decided not to revoke it and to resentence ZTE after looking at the evidence (United States v. ZTE Corporation, N.D. Tex. #3:17-00120).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's request for a stay of its mandate during the company's appeal to the Supreme Court. In a March 23 order, Judges William Bryson and Todd Hughes rebuffed both of Welspun's arguments, which claimed that the company would suffer irreparable harm without a stay and that there's a reasonable shot the Supreme Court will reverse the appellate court's judgment (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).