During oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, three judges questioned the use of a particular statistical test, the Cohen's d test, that is used to identify "masked" dumping in antidumping proceedings. The inquiry built off a July 2021 Federal Circuit ruling that called the use of the test into question since the Commerce Department failed to fulfill certain statistical requirements before running the test (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1747).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade stayed the deadline for DOJ's response to an amicus brief filed by the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a lawsuit on a seized shipment of palm oil over forced labor concerns. The palm oil shipment was entered by importer Virtus Nutrition and was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made in Malaysia by forced labor (Virtus Nutrition v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
The Court of International Trade should not permit the U.S. to add an entire customs broker license exam to the record of a case contesting the results of one individual's exam results, counsel for Byungmin Chae argued in a March 7 reply brief. There are no "extraordinary reasons" that warrant the inclusion of the entire 80-question exam, as only five questions are being contested, Chae said (Byungmin Chae v. Secretary of The Treasury, CIT #20-00316).
A Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter, along with its affiliates, filed for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade, arguing the trade court failed to address the company's alternative arguments on a host of issues. The issues, which include claims about the specificity of an alleged benefit and whether certain input suppliers are government entities, are fully briefed and "ripe for decision," the motion for rehearing said (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT #16-00009).
A Canadian exporter's challenge of antidumping cash deposit instructions should be dismissed since the company can obtain a review of the cash deposit rate through an already initiated USMCA panel review, DOJ said in a March 4 brief. What the exporter, J.D. Irving, really wants is to not pay current cash deposits at the current rate, DOJ told the Court of International Trade. Even if the court finds it does have jurisdiction over the cash deposit instructions, the case still should be dismissed since the payment of cash deposits doesn't establish standing since it isn't an injury, DOJ said (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
DOJ said Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson breached the terms of its 2019 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) by failing to disclose information from an internal investigation into alleged misconduct in Iraq, Ericsson said in a SEC filing. Ericsson's disclosure about the investigation, which covered conduct in 2011-2019, was insufficient, DOJ told the company March 1. Ericsson said it's in communication with DOJ over the facts of the DPA breach and "it is premature to predict the outcome of this matter" at this stage.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are outside the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, DOJ said in a March 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Reflection's window wall systems aren't dependent on other systems and are inserted between slabs to cover an aperture from floor to ceiling, making the goods distinct from curtain wall units and thus "finished goods kits" that qualify for the finished goods kits scope exclusion (Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT #21-00253).
Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s antidumping duty case is an "excellent candidate for resolution via mediation," it told the Court of International Trade in a March 4 motion. Nagase's challenges the Commerce Department's calculation of its cost of production and an alleged error in the assessment rate in Commerce's liquidation instructions to CBP under the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).