The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Nov. 21-27 and Nov. 28 - Dec. 4:

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

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty review challenge at the Court of International Trade, led by Grupo Simec, filed their opposition on Dec. 2 to the Commerce Department's move to add a memorandum to the administrative record. The plaintiffs said the move to add the memo -- a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for AD respondent Grupo Simec -- more than four months after the record closed was illegal because the document had never been "filed, published" or otherwise sent to the parties (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).

Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified as medicaments and as duty-free articles for the handicapped rather than foods, Nutricia North America again argued in a Dec. 2 response brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief follows a Oct. 28 motion for summary judgment by DOJ, wherein the government argued that "while therapeutic, Nutricia's products are still foods" (see 2210310054) (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT # 16-00008).

Two days after filing a second amended complaint alleging insider trading of Intelsat stock (see 2211290056), lead plaintiff Walleye Group conferred with Silver Lake Group, BC Partners and other defendants and agreed on a proposed briefing schedule “that takes into account the upcoming year-end holidays and other commitments of counsel,” said a joint stipulation Friday (docket 4:20-cv-02341) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland. The court should vacate its Jan. 6 initial case management conference and all related deadlines, and adopt a “dispositive motion briefing and hearing schedule” that begins with a Jan. 19 deadline for the defendants to answer the second amended complaint or move to dismiss it, said the stipulation. Walleye’s opposition to any motion to dismiss would be due March 2, and the defendants’ reply would be due March 30, it said. It proposed that a hearing on any motion to dismiss should be scheduled for April 28.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

Importers and exporters of solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam must complete and sign certifications within the next several weeks for any entries after April 1, 2022, to avoid antidumping and countervailing duties imposed in the preliminary determination of an anti-circumvention inquiry released by the Commerce Department on Dec. 2.

If and when cannabis becomes legal to import into the U.S., there is a "high level of certainty" that a U.S. producer will complain about the fairness of the imports to the domestic industry, leading to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, said Adams Lee, international trade attorney at Harris Bricken, during a Dec. 1 webinar hosted by the law firm. Speaking about cannabis and international trade, Lee predicted that if imports of cannabis become legal, they will likely come from Canada -- a nation that has legalized recreational marijuana -- and diminish the market share of U.S.-made product.

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

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 opinion rejected the U.S.' motion to partially dismiss the alternative claims of jurisdiction in a case over the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties. Judge Gary Katzmann said the question of the opinion was whether a party can dismiss an alternatively pleaded ground of jurisdiction. The judge said that since the U.S.'s motion "as styled is not the proper vehicle," the motion is denied.