In defense of its own motion for judgment (see 2405020062) and opposing the government’s counterclaim, an importer again argued that the U.S. can’t counterclaim to reclassify an entry to increase the amount of duty owed on it higher than the rate initially assessed by CBP. Such a counterclaim lacks a cause of action, it said (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
The U.S. brought a complaint against a tire distribution company Aug. 20, seeking payment of a $55,882.98 penalty for the importer’s initial failure, in 2019 and 2020, to pay cash deposits for two tire entries (United States v. Franco Tire Distribution Inc., CIT # 24-00161).
After a four-times-remanded case from 2017 reached a conclusion in the Court of International Trade and went to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and a petitioner filed opening briefs Aug. 16 defending the trade court's final decision (AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. asked the Court of International Trade to compel the Commerce Department not to make adjustments to the plywood surrogate value in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The exporter said in an Aug. 20 brief that, after two remands, the court "has been patient with Commerce," but the agency "has now demonstrated that it has no reasonable explanation for its methodology yet sticks to its unsupported position" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00190).
Importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato filed a scathing motion for judgment on Aug. 19 contesting the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on freight rail couplers from China. The companies contested the commission's decision to rule on the issue at all, seeing as the proceeding was brought just weeks after the commission found that freight rail couplers from China didn't injure the U.S. market (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00157).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 20 deconsolidated two appeals on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers, dismissing one brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit for failure to prosecute. Exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite brought the other appeal, claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the countervailing duty statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific (see 2408080058) (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #'s 24-1593, -1595).
Nonprofit advocacy group Texans for Israel and four of its members filed suit earlier this month to contest the constitutionality of President Joe Biden's executive order allowing for sanctions against those who undermine "peace, security, and stability in the West Bank" (Texans for Israel v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, N.D. Tex. # 2:24-00167).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: