The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 23-29:
Exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) on Sept. 30 defended its bid to consolidate its three appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Erdemir said all three cases are "intertwined" since they are "based on the same triggering act" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Importer 3BTech asked the Court of International Trade to award it attorney's fees in a tariff classification case associated with the company's efforts in resolving the issue of the government's untimely submission of expert declarations. 3BTech said the U.S. willfully violated its disclosure obligations and "blindsided both" the company and the court by not telling either about its plans to work on the declarations when it requested an extension to file its cross-motion for judgment (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 ordered the Commerce Department to add exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s ministerial error allegation to the record of a suit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Mark Barnett gave Commerce until Oct. 7 to add the allegation to the record (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a case regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood mouldings and millwork from China filed two briefs Sept. 25 with the Court of International Trade, again arguing that, one, one respondent’s trading company should have been entitled to the same separate rate as the respondent itself, and, two, that the Commerce Department illegitimately chose to end its review of another respondent early and instead use adverse facts available (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).
Exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. said both the government's and petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance's claims that the Commerce Department didn't need to make an export subsidy adjustment for Ancientree since the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies "fail to properly contemplate" this requirement (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00262).