The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department stood by its usage of financial statements in an antidumping duty review on mattresses from Vietnam in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade Feb. 23. Following a remand by Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce continued to determine that the financial data it used was complete and publicly available and continued to use that information to derive surrogate financial ratios, leaving the AD rate for plaintiff Ashley Furniture at 144.92% (Ashley Furniture Industries, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00283).
Amid a “full spectrum of views” on antitrust enforcement, “we all seem to agree that competition is the goal,” Doha Mekki, principal deputy assistant attorney general in DOJ's Antitrust Division, told a New York University Law School conference Friday on antitrust and big tech in the 21st century.
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff-appellant Amsted Rail Co.'s attorney conflict of interest case because it should have instead been filed as a challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, and in any case ARC doesn't prove a conflict of interest existed from the participation of its former counsel in the investigations, the ITC and defendant-intervenor Coalition of Freight Rail Producers argued in a pair of reply briefs filed Feb. 22 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
Antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec failed to prove that it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without an injunction against AD cash deposits, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 24 opinion denying the preliminary injunction motion. Judge Stephen Vaden added that Grupo Simec's evidence purportedly showing how it would be harmed without the injunction contained conclusory evidence that, if held to be sufficient to establish harm, would "eviscerate the operation of the antidumping laws."
Exporter Evraz Inc. moved to dismiss its own antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 22 notice of dismissal. The case concerns the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. Evraz moved to dismiss the case under CIT's rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says that the plaintiff can dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #23-00012).
U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion made public Feb. 24 upheld the Commerce Department's interpretation of the Major Inputs Rule to allow the use of third-country surrogate data as "information available" for finding the cost of production of a major input bought from an affiliated non-market economy-based supplier.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Defendant-intervenor Endura Products dropped out of an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade after its bid for a stay in the action pending the resolution of a scope proceeding also at the trade court was denied (see 2302060069). Submitting a motion to withdraw Feb. 21, Endura said it "no longer has an interest in the current appeal" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).