The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed exporter Koehler's request for the Court of International Trade to certify its order permitting service on the company's U.S. counsel to allow for an immediate appeal of the order. The government said an immediate appeal will fail to "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" because the U.S. can still effect service through other means if the court's order is reversed (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
Indonesia opened a safeguard investigation Sept. 9 covering polyethylene containing 5% or less alpha-olefin monomers in other than liquid/paste form, it told the World Trade Organization Sept. 11. Parties wishing to submit comments on the proceeding should submit a written request to do so within 15 days from the date of initiation to the investigating authority, the Indonesian Safeguards Committee said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
China officially requested dispute consultations with Canada at the World Trade Organization Sept. 11 regarding Canada's upcoming tariffs on various Chinese goods (see 2409040007), including electric vehicles and steel and aluminum products, the WTO announced. If consultations have failed to settle the matter within 60 days, China can request a dispute panel.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. argued at the Court of International Trade that the International Trade Commission failed to reconcile its "contradictory conclusions" on the same evidence in finding that the domestic industry was harmed by imports of freight rail couplers. Filing a motion for judgment on Sept. 6, ARC said that didn't account for a key finding in a previous investigation on the freight rail couplers, which said that the domestic industry's health is "disproportionately" tied to demand for the couplers in the original equipment manufacturer market segment (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).
Importer Performance Additives filed its opening brief on Sept. 9 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, claiming that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that various of the company's duty drawback claims weren't "deemed liquidated." The company argued that the trade court imposed conditions on the deemed liquidation rule of 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(a)(2)(A) that don't exist in the statute and imposed the rules of Section 1504(a)(2)(B) despite this law not applying to the company's entries at issue (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 struck a brief from U.S. Steel after the company attempted to submit supplemental arguments in a case on Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said that because he rejected the company's bid to join the action, it's not a party to the case and can't file briefs (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 10 updated its 2024-25 sessions calendar and adopted a new 2025-26 sessions calendar, the court announced. The calendars will see the court hear cases the first full week of each month. In December 2024 and January-May 2025, the court will sit for the entire first full week along with the following Monday.
The U.S. on Sept. 5 unsealed an indictment against Sam Bhambhani, a North Attleboro, Massachusetts, resident and salesman for an unnamed laser source supplier, for allegedly conspiring to violate U.S. export controls and smuggling goods from the U.S. by sending laser welding machines to Russia. Also named in the indictment was Maxim Teslenko, a Russian citizen, who "acted as a reseller of laser equipment to the Russian government."
Exporters CS Wind Malaysia and CS Wind Korea filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 challenging the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia. The companies, collectively referred to as CS Wind, challenged Commerce's alleged failure to apply a cost adjustment to CS Wind's cost of manufacturing and decision to calculate the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios based on an average of two surrogate Malaysian companies (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).