The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content. The government in appealing the case joins the petitioner, who has already asked the appellate court for expedited consideration of the matter (see 2511260067) (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a stipulation of dismissal in an antidumping duty case it filed earlier this year at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).
Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.
Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss a case from importer Eteros Technologies and three of its executives alleging retaliation against the parties for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The government told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the plaintiffs "continue to conflate customs and immigration law" and failed to "plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).