CBP's decision not to pay out interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on collected antidumping and countervailing duties violates the plain language of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, groups of plaintiff-appellants argued in two opening briefs in two different cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One brief, penned by appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. and American Drew, said that even if the law was ambiguous, CBP has failed to exercise any authority "in a way that deserves deference" (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
Cross-petitioning the Supreme Court with two petitions for certiorari on different issues from Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, as CCIA and NetChoice did, is the only way to bring compelled disclosure provisions that weren’t ruled unconstitutional by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in front of the justices, said academics and lawyers in interviews.
The Commerce Department abused its discretion by denying respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' late-filed submission in an antidumping duty review while giving itself a far greater delay, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 28 opinion. Ajmal claimed that COVID-19-related difficulties caused the less-than-two-hour delay. While Judge Jane Restani ruled that it could be considered reasonable for Commerce to have rejected the filing on these grounds, the judge said that the agency abused its discretion by ignoring its own actions, which caused a far more considerable delay in the proceeding.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A company's information shared with counsel jointly representing another firm is not treated as confidential and "cannot serve as a basis for a conflict claim," counsel for defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) cannot claim that the coalition's counsel -- led by Daniel Pickard of Buchanan Ingersoll -- violated the D.C. Bar's rules of ethics, Pickard said (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
CBP cannot collect on a bond due 14 years ago by claiming a breach occurred only when CBP demanded payment through the agency's own error, Aegis Security Insurance Company said in an Oct. 21 response brief and request for dismissal at the Court of International Trade (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP did not violate an importer's due process rights by requiring protests for retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties on imported pressure switches, the government said in an Oct. 25 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124). The brief is in support of DOJ's July motion for dismissal claiming lack of jurisdiction and timeliness.
ITC Can't Claim Exhaustion Defense Given Release of BPI, Plaintiffs Argue in Row Over Former Counsel
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.