The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion to dismiss a case from Wheatland Tube Co. seeking to compel CBP to respond to requests for information and a tariff classification ruling, Wheatland said in a March 9 reply brief. DOJ had said the trade court should toss the case, in part, since it already responded to the RFI and petition for a tariff classification. Wheatland disagreed, arguing that CBP's limited response failed to meet the requirements of Section 1516 which mandates that CBP "furnish the classification and the rate of duty imposed upon designated imported merchandise" (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).
Mayer Brown wants nearly $3 million in legal fees over a False Claims Act case it won for Island Industries in which a California district court said that Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation avoided antidumping duties. Petitioning the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Mayer Brown said that the $3 million request for fees, costs and expenses -- amounting to around 11.3% of the total judgment -- is "eminitely reasonably and justified" given Sigma's complex defense of its actions in multiple venues (United States v. Vandewater International, C.D. Cal. #17-04393).
Exporter China Customs Manufacturing's solar panel mount assemblies are "fully and completely assembled" at the time they're imported, thus qualifying for a finished merchandise exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 8, CCM, along with Greentec Engineering, argued that the record shows that the solar panel mount assemblies satisfy each of the requirements for the exclusion, including being fully assembled at the time of entry (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1345).
The Commerce Department gave itself more time to consider whether to begin an anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, in a March 9 memo. The petition alleges that Chinese solar panel manufacturers have shifted manufacturing to Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam to circumvent the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on solar cells and modules from China (see 2202090060).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should deny Chinese exporter Jangho Group's bid for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case filed to contest Commerce's alleged failure to address the company's alternative arguments, the U.S. said in a March 9 reply brief. Jangho last raised the "long gone" arguments in 2019, and failed to raise its alternative arguments in its post-remand brief, meaning they are "waived" and thus not eligible for further litigation, DOJ argued (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00009).
The Court of International Trade granted steel importer North American Interpipe refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties it paid following court mediation over the company's challenge to the U.S.'s denials of NAI's exclusion requests from the tariffs. Per the public stipulated judgment on agreed-upon fact, Judge M. Miller Baker penned an order which declares that NAI may not appeal (North American Interpipe v. United States, CIT #20-03825).
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act taken as a whole authorizes expedited countervailing duty reviews, the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick along with six Canadian companies argued in a March 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When taking into account the context of the URAA, its legislative history and the legislative process through which the URAA was adopted, it's clear that Congress meant to establish an expedited review process, the Canadian parties argued.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly decided not to consider off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty administrative review, DOJ said in a March 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to a motion for judgment from petitioner Nucor Corporation, DOJ said that Nucor's arguments merely dispute how Commerce weighed the evidence alleging that the provision of off-peak electricity for LTAR was a countervailable subsidy (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00182).