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

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 5 text-only order denied the antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's motion to extend time to file opposition to plaintiff Oman Fastener's bid for a preliminary injunction against cash deposit requirements. Oman Fasteners on Jan. 4 filed its opposition to the time extension request, telling the trade court that "because the continued existence of Oman Fasteners hangs precariously in the balance, and because the ten-day extension proposed by Mid Continent would compound Oman Fasteners’ substantial ongoing irreparable harm, this is that rare case" requiring the extension bid to be denied (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).

The Commerce Department properly found that it had enough industry support to kick off the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products from India, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Jan. 5 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's ruling, Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Sharon Prost ruled that Commerce permissibly found that the term "producer" did not include quartz surface product fabricators and that the agency backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via its six-factor production-related activities test.

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

Importer Kyocera Document Solutions America will get refunds on Section 301 duties paid for its printer maintenance kits that were granted a tariff exclusion by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The importer filed a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on an agreed set of facts, which say that the maintenance kits, liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8443.99.2050 and assessed Section 301 tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.01, fit under the exclusion.

The Commerce Department illegally failed to give exporter Goodluck India a chance to request a review after it was reinstated as subject to an antidumping duty order, Goodluck argued in a Jan. 3 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. After the trade court settled a jurisdictional issue in the case, the exporter in a new motion for judgment argued that Commerce violated the law by assessing duties at the adverse facts available rate and deciding that the AFA cash deposit rate became effective on Sept. 10, 2021 -- 10 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provisionally revoked the order as to Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00024).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 26 - Jan. 1:

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 order granted the U.S. motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act appeal to the extent the motion must be filed within 14 days. The U.S. asked for leave to file the motion seeing as all the entries at issue have been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 30 order gave plaintiff-appellants in a countervailing duty case a two-week extension to file their opening brief, setting the due date at Jan. 17. The appellants, Tau-Ken Temir, Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, and Tau-Ken Samruk, requested the extension -- the second of its kind for the opening brief -- since their counsel, Peter Koenig of Squire Patton, got hit with "two new unanticipated large questionnaire responses due at the" Commerce Department and "two new briefs due at" CIT since the first extension request. Koenig said more time is needed to coordinate a single brief among the three appellants, especially given that one is a foreign government agency (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).