The Commerce Department unlawfully found that countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, importer Craft33 Products argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Craft33 said it's "one of a number of American firms caught in the crossfire of Commerce's approach to the EBCP and the wider trade war with China" (Craft33 Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00224).
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.
The Commerce Department failed to justify its finding that a subsidy to exporter OCP from a program for relief from tax fines and penalties was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8. Remanding the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco for a second time, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency's altered defense of its specificity finding was no less "absurd" than it was in the first go-round.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Retractable Technologies on Jan. 7 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes. The company voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice and declined to comment on the decision (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 heard oral argument in the massive Section 301 litigation, primarily probing the litigants' positions regarding how to interpret the term "modify" in the statute and whether the statute allows the U.S. trade representative to impose duties in response to retaliatory measures from China (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Hogan Lovells elevated international trade attorney Michael Jacobson to partner, the firm announced on Jan. 6. Jacobson joined the firm in 2013 in the international trade and investment practice, centering his practice on trade remedies litigation and investor-state arbitration. Hogan Lovells additionally announced that three trade attorneys were elevated to counsel: Mario Lara Rodriguez in the Mexico City office, Stephanie Sun in the Shanghai office, and Deborah Wei in the Washington, D.C., office.
International trade firm Sandler Travis expanded into Houston after five trade attorneys from customs firm The Law Office of Lawrence W. Hanson, P.C. joined the firm, Sandler Travis announced. The attorneys are Larry Hanson, a former attorney for the U.S. Customs Service, who joined as of counsel; James Amyx and Matthew Cummins, who joined as senior associates; and Bilal Hassan and Parker Edwards, who joined as associates.
India and Madagascar recently launched new safeguard investigations, the nations told the World Trade Organization's Committee on Safeguards. India opened a proceeding on non-alloy and alloy steel flat products. Madagascar opened an investigation on tomato products. India said interested parties had 15 days from Dec. 19 to make their views heard. Madagascar gave parties until Jan. 21 to make themselves known.
The Commerce Department adequately calculated the boat freight surrogate value in an antidumping duty review without making an adjustment for distance, the U.S. argued. Responding to respondent Giti Tire Global Trading's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce showed that its calculation was in line with its past practice (Giti Tire Global Trading v. United States, CIT # 24-00083).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 7 after rejecting Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i). The company recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2501020026). CAFC dismissed the case after finding its true nature to be a challenge to a former AD rate received by J.D. Irving, making jurisdiction proper under Section 1581(c) (see 2410100042). In addition, the court said relief could be sought either before a binational panel or in an AD review (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).