The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

A recent Court of International Trade case that dealt with goods excluded over forced labor concerns ended "with a whimper," leaving the trade bar without any answers on how to challenge CBP forced labor detentions, Crowell & Moring lawyers wrote in a Dec. 29 blog post. Attorneys John Brew, Laurel Saito and Wing Cheung said that while the "importing community was hoping for such guidance," it will be forced to wait as it is "unlikely" that the plaintiff, Virtus Nutrition,will appeal the matter.

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

The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).

CBP is empowered to make its own scope determinations when evaluating antidumping and countervailing duty evasions, and the Court of International Trade should therefore sustain a determination made by CBP regarding steel grating from China, the government argued in a Dec. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. The government response comes eight months after a motion for judgment filed by importer Ikadan System USA and manufacturer Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. (see 2204260079) because of a voluntary remand (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00592).

A busy communications litigation calendar is set for early 2023, highlighted by Jan. 12 oral argument in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is trying to reverse a preliminary injunction that bars her from enforcing the state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) over the objections of the New York State Telecommunications Association, CTIA and other trade groups (docket 21-1975).

The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).

The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear an Enforce and Protect Act case even though the entries in question have liquidated, plaintiff-appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 27 opening brief. "Absurd results would also surely follow if the CIT does not have jurisdiction over liquidated entries," the plaintiff-appellants claimed while vying for jurisdiction for their EAPA case under Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

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