The Commerce Department announced new export restrictions April 26 that it says are intended to reduce the risk that firearms end up in the hands of criminals, terrorists or cartels.
The statute on deemed liquidation for drawback claims "doesn't make sense as written," Judge Jane Restani said during April 18 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade. She said that both importer Performance Additives and the government are "adding terms to the statutes that aren't there," but said she understands because "none of this can work if we just read the words that are there" (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).
The SEC's 3-2 vote Feb. 29 finalizing a new rule to expand the definition of the statutory term “dealer” under the Exchange Act is “unclear in ways that squarely conflict with the statute,” said a complaint Tuesday (docket 4:24-cv-00361) filed by the Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas and the Blockchain Association in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
The Court of International Trade on April 22 sent back the Commerce Department's decision not to attribute subsidies received by lumber suppliers to respondents in an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber. Judge Mark Barnett said that if Commerce continues to find that the respondents are the producers of the subject lumber, the agency must reconsider its decision to require an upstream subsidy allegation for lumber purchases within the class of covered merchandise.
U.S. steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs filed stipulations of dismissal in two suits challenging the International Trade Commission's negative injury findings in the five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil and the AD/CVD orders on hot-rolled steel from Brazil. The company had filed its complaint in both cases, arguing against the ITC's decision not to cumluate imports from Brazil with goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Alpinestars, an Italian exporter of motorcycle safety apparel, brought a short complaint to the Court of International Trade on April 18 (Alpinestars, SPA v. U.S., CIT # 11-00007).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on April 17 filed for partial reconsideration of a Court of International Trade judgment that held the government waited too long to make a demand for payment under a customs bond, violating an "implied contractual term." The government said that it couldn't have "anticipated raising or discussing the issue" of an "implied contractual term of a reasonable time for demand," so it seeks to "do so here" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).