The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Retail giant Target Corp. will appeal a July Court of International Trade decision, which refused to invalidate a prior court order telling CBP to reliquidate Target's metal-top ironing tables. The notice of appeal says the retailer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, Judge Leo Gordon said that if Target succeeded, it would call into question whether a party at the court could obtain "full and complete relief," turning the clock back over 40 years on the Article III court powers (see 2307200049) (Target Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00162).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 7 order stayed a case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products beyond procedural time limits, pending the Supreme Court of the U.S.'s resolution of a case on the same challenge. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu stayed the matter until 65 days after PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. is settled. Importer PrimeSource filed for a writ of certiorari at the high court at the end of July, asking the court to take up the case to settle ambiguity in the statutes delegating vast legislative power to the executive in favor of restraining this delegation (see 2307270028) (Tempo Global Resources v. U.S., CIT # 20-00066).
Free market-oriented groups filed an amicus brief in support of Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's method for funding the USF, the subject of an upcoming en banc rehearing of the group’s challenge of the USF and how it’s funded by the FCC (see 2306290074). “Only Congress has the power to lay and to collect taxes for the universal welfare of all Americans. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or any other executive branch agency,” said an amicus brief by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Free State Foundation and former Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, among others. Consumers’ Research argued the statutory framework for the fund unconstitutionally delegates legislative or taxing authority, and the FCC’s use of the Universal Service Administrative Co. is an impermissible delegation of regulatory authority to a private company. A three-judge panel ruled against Consumers' Research in March (see 2303240049). Said the filing Friday in case 22-60008: “The Constitution does not permit Congress to circumvent the legislative process by allowing an independent agency (guided by a private company owned by an industry trade group) to raise and to spend however much money it wants every quarter for ‘universal service’ at the expense of every American who pays a monthly phone bill. Elected representatives of the people, not the [FCC], must be responsible for making the difficult decisions to raise the revenue that funds this program.”
Free market-oriented groups filed an amicus brief in support of Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's method for funding the USF, the subject of an upcoming en banc rehearing of the group’s challenge of the USF and how it’s funded by the FCC (see 2306290074). “Only Congress has the power to lay and to collect taxes for the universal welfare of all Americans. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or any other executive branch agency,” said an amicus brief by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Free State Foundation and former Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, among others. Consumers’ Research argued the statutory framework for the fund unconstitutionally delegates legislative or taxing authority, and the FCC’s use of the Universal Service Administrative Co. is an impermissible delegation of regulatory authority to a private company. A three-judge panel ruled against Consumers' Research in March (see 2303240049). Said the filing Friday in case 22-60008: “The Constitution does not permit Congress to circumvent the legislative process by allowing an independent agency (guided by a private company owned by an industry trade group) to raise and to spend however much money it wants every quarter for ‘universal service’ at the expense of every American who pays a monthly phone bill. Elected representatives of the people, not the [FCC], must be responsible for making the difficult decisions to raise the revenue that funds this program.”
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Parties in a suit over the Commerce Department's expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber disagreed on whether the Court of International Trade should tell Commerce to exclude four Canadian exporters from the CVD order following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying the agency has the authority to conduct the review. In a joint status report filed Aug. 7, the Canadian parties in the case, which include the Canadian government, said the court should tell Commerce to exclude the companies and tell CBP to stop collecting CVD cash deposits, while the petitioner said a joint status report is not the correct venue for the request (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).
The following lawsuit was filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 31 - Aug. 6:
CBP incorrectly denied protests seeking retroactive refunds of Section 301 duties for entries of furniture parts and boxes imported from China, importer Store Supply Warehouse said in an Aug. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The protested items consisted of nine entries of hardware racks, three entries of jewelry boxes and 10 entries of showcase parts imported through the Port of Savannah (Store Supply Warehouse v. U.S., CIT # 23-00035).
Commerce did not have the right to institute an administrative review of an antidumping duty case while the underlying order was provisionally revoked, Goodluck India said during an Aug. 1 oral argument at the Court of International Trade. In response to questions from Judge Gary Katzmann, the central issue in the suit shifted from whether Commerce lawfully ordered liquidation at a rate vacated at the time of entry to whether the agency had the right to start a review of Goodluck while the AD order was provisionally revoked, pending appeal (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).