The number of antidumping or countervailing duty cases brought repeatedly by the same industry is growing, according to a new analysis by Craig Thomsen, an economist at the International Trade Commission.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5 dismissed importer Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest suit concerning attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, in an injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. Amsted Rail filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal a few days prior in the suit that the Court of International Trade previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057).
The number of antidumping or countervailing duty cases brought repeatedly by the same industry is growing, according to a new analysis by Craig Thomsen, an economist at the International Trade Commission.
The Commerce department’s decision to use the all-others rate from an earlier antidumping duty investigation on quartz surface products to calculate the rate for the non-selected respondents in the first administrative review should be remanded to the agency, AD petitioner Cambria said in a June 30 motion at the Court of International Trade (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).
Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).
Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).
Broadcasters, satellite companies and trade groups disagreed how often the FCC should reevaluate its regulatory fee structure and whether the system needs new payers, in reply comments filed by Thursday’s deadline. The agency should “continue to conduct such reviews of the work of its indirect FTEs [full-time equivalents] annually, as well as to identify additional ways that the Commission’s regulatory fee process can be made fairer and remain current,” said a joint reply from state broadcast associations in docket 23-159. “A complex accounting of indirect FTEs is not fair, administrable, or sustainable” and doing such an analysis annually would create administrative burdens and raise fairness concerns, said CTIA.