The Commerce Department made several errors in its handling of the resumption of an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico after the termination of a suspension agreement, Mexican tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente said in a Sept. 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT # 19-00204).
The U.S. filed a motion to remand an Enforce and Protect Act case in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, in which the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA party's due process rights by not granting them access to business confidential information. Filing the Sept. 14 motion in a Court of International Trade case filed by importer Newtrend USA Co., the government claimed that a limited remand is needed because the opinion concerns "the treatment of confidential information" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Groups of exporters and importers filed complaints in 19 separate cases this week challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China covering exports from Vietnam.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
The Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear importer Greentech Energy Solution's claims challenging CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 motion to dismiss. The "protest procedure" at CIT and "judicial review" under Section 1581(a) are not "manifestly inadequate" to review Greentech's claims, barring review under Section 1581(i), the government said (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 28 - Sept. 3 and Sept. 4-10:
Federal Maritime Commissioner Carl Bentzel expects the government to eventually scrutinize certain rail storage fees imposed by ocean carriers on through bills of lading, he said during an industry conference this week. He also said the FMC is “very close” to finalizing its rule on detention and demurrage billing requirements and wants to better address issues involving service contract disputes between carriers and shippers.
Charter Communications seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Bridger Mahlum, its former director-state government affairs, from working for BroadbandMT or any other direct competitor and to keep him from divulging Charter’s trade secrets (see 2308210001), said its emergency motion Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01106) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. The court’s Aug. 30 order granted Charter’s request for a temporary restraining order against Mahlum, giving him until Sept. 29 to show cause why it shouldn’t issue a preliminary injunction in Charter’s favor. But Mahlum can’t make such a showing, “as he has blatantly violated the valid, enforceable restrictive covenants” in his Charter employment agreements and threatens to misappropriate Charter’s trade secrets for BroadbandMT’s benefit, if he hasn’t already done so, said Charter’s emergency motion. “Emergency preliminary injunctive relief is necessary in this case,” it said. Mahlum’s employment for BroadbandMT “is precisely the type of unfair competition” that the noncompete covenants in his agreements “are designed to guard against,” it said. Mahlum’s unlawful activities “immediately and irreparably harm Charter and may be remedied only by emergency and preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of a separate arbitration Charter filed against Mahlum,” it said. The parties’ arbitration agreement “contains a specific carve out for actions seeking temporary and preliminary injunctive relief,” it said.