Jacob Kopnick

Plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, that stand accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China vigorously challenged CBP's finding of evasion, in an Aug. 5 brief backing their motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In another case going after CBP's alleged violations of due process in Enforce and Protect Act investigations (see 2107010085), the plaintiffs argued that CBP's missteps are not merely procedural mistakes, but rather a "failure of essential process that led to profound harm." The violations are so egregious that they "would be unacceptable in any country that prides itself on democratic process -- and for the United States, they are a travesty," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03914).

The defendant-intervenor in an antidumping duty case, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, backed the Commerce Department's motion for voluntary remand since court precedent supports granting remands to correct issues in underlying determinations for the courts to review. Making its case in an Aug. 9 response, the union said that preventing Commerce from performing the review laid out in the remand would "serve no legitimate purpose." In another filing, the union opposed the case's mandatory respondent from intervening in the case due to an untimely bid (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00115).

Printed circuit board assembly importer Triumph Engine Control Systems moved to overturn the dismissal of four of its cases issued by the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 9 filing. Claiming that it clears the standard for reversing dismissals due to lack of prosecution set in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the importer requested an extension of the time to remain on the Customs Case Management Calendar (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. U.S., CIT #19-00108, #19-00109, #19-00110, #19-00130).

The Commerce Department correctly relied on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating the respondent's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 10 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly sustained the remand results after twice remanding them, finding substantial evidence backing the second redetermination.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. government laid out two changes it made to the repository for entries subject to Section 301 duties in response to the plaintiffs' concerns, in an Aug. 9 joint status report filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the court's order of a preliminary injunction against liquidation of entries with Section 301 exposure pending resolution of litigation (see 2107060077), much haggling has been done between the parties over the terms of the injunction, prompting continued changes from the U.S. (see 2108020029).

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied, in part, and declared moot, in part, a Michigan-based car importer's challenge to two titling requirements imposed by the state of Ohio, in an Aug. 3 opinion. Judge Edmund Sargus found the challenge to a bond release letter requirement to be moot given the requirement was already lifted and that the claim against in-state inspection requirements fails since the regulation does not discriminate against out-of-state interests.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department must further explain its departure from the expected method in calculating the non-individually examined respondents rate in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade said in an July 30 opinion made public on Aug. 6. Chief Judge Mark Barnett, issuing his third opinion in the case, partially remanded the case yet again, but did sustain Commerce's corroboration of the petition rate for mandatory respondent Unicatch based on individual transactions.

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion for remand in an antidumping case since it is unclear whether the court has the authority, plaintiff Pirelli Tyre Co. said in an Aug. 9 brief. Since the proposed reasoning for the voluntary remand revolves around the conduct of a company not party to the case, the court may not have the legal authority to issue such a remand, Pirelli said. Even with such authority, the remand should not be permitted since it is not necessary to achieve the U.S.'s objective and would harm Pirelli's interests, the plaintiff said (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).