The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 23 brief. The decision is based on an "incorrect interpretation of" the statute, and the parties never presented the issue of whether the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1677e(d), lets Commerce use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse rate, the government claimed (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 20 order dismissed a case on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. Commerce originally tapped two mandatory respondents in the review, selecting Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon and Jilin Bright Future Chemicals. The agency gave Datong Juqing a zero percent dumping rate while assigning Jilin Bright a $0.62 per kilogram dumping margin. The agency then assigned separate rate respondents the same $0.62/kg rate it gave to Jilin Bright (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., et al. v. United States, CIT #22-00335).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 16-22:

Boronized steel tubes made in the U.S. are unfinished steel goods, not repaired articles, DOJ argued in a Jan. 20 counterclaim that is seeking $760,000 in unpaid duties at the Court of International Trade in a denied protest case filed by an importer (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).

The Supreme Court requested DOJ’s input in three cases on social media laws in Texas and Florida, setting up potential high court review this fall (see 2301030062).

The Court of International Trade dismissed a case contesting the International Trade Commission's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea for lack of prosecution (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00345). Plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca filed three other cases contesting the ITC's injury determination and the related antidumping duty investigation by the Department of Commerce (see 2301180047). Unlike the other cases, the Dec. 16 summons was never followed up on by the plaintiffs before it was dismissed by the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).