The Commerce Department legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
Liquidation of imported picture frame moldings should have been suspended pending antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, importer Larson-Juhl told the Court of International Trade in a March 30 complaint. The complaint contests CBP's denial of Larson-Juhl's protests concerning the liquidation and assessment of duties on nine entries subject to AD and CVD orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (Larson-Juhl US v. United States., CIT # 23-00032).
Walleye Group, lead plaintiff in the insider-trading lawsuit against former top Intelsat officers and shareholders, can’t provide “a single specific fact” to show what information former Chairman David McGlade learned, how he learned it, or when, before he participated in the divestiture of $246 million in Intelsat stock, said McGlade’s reply brief (docket 4:20-cv-02341). The brief was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland in support of the defendants’ Jan. 19 motion to dismiss Walleye’s second amended complaint (SAC) (see 2301190044).
The statute of limitations in customs penalties runs from the date of entry, not from the date that the importer directed the violation to be committed, the Court of International Trade said in a March 31 decision that denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
As filing day approaches, the calendar is marked with a big figurative red X, multiple alerts have been set and hours have been spent combing through documents to make sure the Commerce Department’s ACCESS system accepts the submission. But sometimes, despite all the preparation, something derails the process and the documents are turned in late. Suddenly, a routine part of the job has morphed into every lawyer’s nightmare -- a missed deadline.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should take up the Standard/Tegna broadcasters’ appeal of the FCC’s HDO, said NAB in an amicus filing Thursday. “This Court should treat this order according to its intent and effect—a de facto final denial of the license application—and hear the appeal,” NAB said in the brief filed late Thursday. Refusal to act is itself an agency final action, said the Standard/Tegna broadcast parties in a filing opposing the FCC’s motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss their appeal (see 2303280072). The FCC Media Bureau’s action “on gossamer evidence” injects “untenable unpredictability into license transfer applications,” NAB said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 30 in a case wherein it ruled a protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation, rather than the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request. In the decision, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade opinion dismissing the case on the grounds that Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, failed to file a protest in time (see 2302060029) (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1161).
The statute of limitations in customs penalties runs from the date of entry, not from the date that the importer directed the violation to be committed, the Court of International Trade said in a March 31 decision that denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should take up the Standard/Tegna broadcasters’ appeal of the FCC’s HDO, said NAB in an amicus filing Thursday. “This Court should treat this order according to its intent and effect—a de facto final denial of the license application—and hear the appeal,” NAB said in the brief filed late Thursday. Refusal to act is itself an agency final action, said the Standard/Tegna broadcast parties in a filing opposing the FCC’s motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss their appeal (see 2303280072). The FCC Media Bureau’s action “on gossamer evidence” injects “untenable unpredictability into license transfer applications,” NAB said.