Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) and ASF-K Mexico again took to the Court of International Trade, this time against the Commerce Department, in a bid to get the trade court to disqualify its former law firm from further participation in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and Mexico. ARC and ASF-K said that Commerce's refusal to disqualify Buchanan Ingersoll and timely rescind access to business proprietary information (BPI) violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiff's right to due process (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 24-30:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Unreliable lab reports by CBP call into question suspended cases, regardless of the outcome of a test case, New Image Global, Inc., argued in two separate Oct. 28 complaints to the Court of International Trade (New Image Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00271 and 15-00316).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 28 order consolidated two appeals of a lower court opinion dismissing importer Dr. Bronner's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over xanthan gum imports, dismissing GLoB Energy Corp.'s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying the remaining motions for judgment on the agency record. One case was appealed from the Court of International Trade by Ascencion Chemicals, UMD Solutions and Crude Chem Technology, while the other was brought by GLoB (All God One Faith, dba Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1078).
Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. heading 2106 as "food preparations" rather than as "medicaments," DOJ argued in an Oct. 28 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nutricia North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00008).
'Major Questions Doctrine' Does Not to Apply to Section 301 Exclusion Case, US Tells Federal Circuit
The "major questions doctrine" established in the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA does not apply to the question of whether a protest needed to be filed with CBP to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 28 brief opposing a motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Even if the major questions doctrine did apply, CBP acted in line with the clear authority granted by Congress in collecting Section 301 duties from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, the brief said (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. is using a spat over whether surety company American Home Assurance Co. can use a laches defense in a customs penalty case "as a red herring" to turn the Court of International Trade's attention away from the surety's statute of limitations defense, AHAC argued in an Oct. 27 reply brief. The matter is a "straight-forward statute of limitations case" since the U.S. brought the action seeking uncollected antidumping duties more than six years after the right of action began, and any attack on the defendant's affirmative defense of laches is merely a distraction, the brief said (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., CIT #20-00175).