The Department of Justice motion for case management procedures to navigate the thousands of Section 301 tariff complaints before the Court of International Trade (see 2009240026) was “procedurally defective” because it wasn’t served on any other plaintiffs who filed cases involving the original HMTX Industries lawsuit, said an opposition Sept. 28 from Paulsen Vandevert, lawyer for importers GHSP and Brose North America. The more than 3,400 complaints seek to have the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings vacated and the paid duties refunded. GHSP, a supplier of electromechanical systems to the automotive industry, and Brose, a distributor of mechatronic parts for motorized car seats, are in “full agreement” with DOJ that the many complaints will require case management procedures, Vandevert said. But his clients “strongly object” to designating the three “first-filed” complaints as test cases, he said.

Thursday was the deadline for comments at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of the Tariff Act Section 337 exclusion order DivX seeks against LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and video processors from MediaTek, MStar and Realtek for allegedly infringing DivX adaptive bitrate streaming patents (see 2009160052). Realtek instead sought a 100-day ITC “adjudication” challenging DivX’s qualifications to bring a patent case because it’s “unlikely” DivX can satisfy “the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement” under ITC rules, said the chipmaker in Friday's posting (login required) in docket 337-3489. Realtek wants “expedited consideration” of the domestic industry requirement because a ruling against DivX “will likely avoid unnecessary and burdensome litigation,” said the filing.

The Aluminum Association filed petitions on Sept. 29 with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission requesting new antidumping duty investigations on aluminum foil from Armenia, Brazil, Oman, Russia and Turkey, and new countervailing duties on aluminum foil from Oman and Turkey. Commerce will now decide whether to begin AD/CVD investigations on aluminum from these countries that could eventually result in the assessment of AD/CV duties.

Nearly 1,000 lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 21-27 (see 2009220029 and 2009220014). For a full list, see the PACER database.

Thursday was the deadline for comments at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of the Tariff Act Section 337 exclusion order DivX seeks against LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and video processors from MediaTek, MStar and Realtek for allegedly infringing DivX adaptive bitrate streaming patents (see 2009160052). Realtek instead sought a 100-day ITC “adjudication” challenging DivX’s qualifications to bring a patent case because it’s “unlikely” DivX can satisfy “the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement” under ITC rules, said the chipmaker in Friday's posting (login required) in docket 337-3489. Realtek wants “expedited consideration” of the domestic industry requirement because a ruling against DivX “will likely avoid unnecessary and burdensome litigation,” said the filing.

Thursday was the deadline for comments at the International Trade Commission on the public interest ramifications of the Tariff Act Section 337 exclusion order DivX seeks against LG, Samsung and TCL smart TVs and video processors from MediaTek, MStar and Realtek for allegedly infringing DivX adaptive bitrate streaming patents (see 2009160052). Realtek instead sought a 100-day ITC “adjudication” challenging DivX’s qualifications to bring a patent case because it’s “unlikely” DivX can satisfy “the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement” under ITC rules, said the chipmaker in Friday's posting (login required) in docket 337-3489.

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from Sept. 21-25 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

DOJ broke the rules of the U.S. Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240040) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, argued Husch Blackwell in court papers (in Pacer) Friday. The firm sued (in Pacer) on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18 and filed a second complaint (in Pacer) for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” said Husch Blackwell. Failure to serve the motion on lawyers other than Akin Gump, representing HMTX Industries in the original complaint, should be grounds for denial, it said. The firm's clients agree a conference should be convened to “address the procedural issues” in the many cases, it said. But designation of a test case “will depend upon the nature of the complaints that have been filed, and whether all complaints are virtually identical or are different in material respects,” it said. “DOJ makes no claim that it knows how similar or dissimilar the complaints are and provides no analysis for the conclusion that they should be treated alike.” DOJ didn't respond to questions.

The Department of Justice ignored the rules of the Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240026) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, Husch Blackwell argued in court papers Sept. 25. The firm sued on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18, and filed a second complaint for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the List 3 and List 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation of why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” Husch Blackwell said. The firm “only became aware of this Motion” through “a reference to it in the trade press, at which time we retrieved a copy of the Government’s Motion in the HMTX case from the Court’s docket in that separate case,” it said.

A multinational engineering company will pay more than $22.2 million to resolve a False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit related to the evasion of customs and antidumping and countervailing duties. Germany-based Linde GmbH and its U.S. affiliate, Linde Engineering North America, allegedly misrepresented the nature, classification, and valuation of imported merchandise, as well as the applicability of free trade agreements, so as not to pay tariffs, the Department of Justice said in a Sept. 25 news release.