Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire in a Feb. 9 brief opposed plaintiff Oman Fasteners' bid for leave to fix mistakes in its recent motion to take judicial notice. Mid Continent said the trade court should refuse to give Oman Fasteners "another bite at the apple" to fix the mistakes in the brief, noting that this is the "second time in less than a month" that the exporter has asked the trade court for permission to address problems in one of its filings (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department erred when it rejected extension requests and imposed adverse facts available in its 2019-2021 antidumping duty administrative review on quartz surface products from India, three affiliated Indian producers said in a Feb. 8 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Antique Marbonite v. U.S., CIT # 23-00030).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case brought by Nucor Corp. should not be considered in a separate CVD case led by Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. For starters, the remand results -- which saw Commerce decide not to treat a CVD respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier -- have not been sustained, but even if they were, the trade court is not bound by judgments of other CIT judges, the government said. Also, the analysis in the Nucor case deals with particular companies and is specific to that case (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00565).
A proposed remand order that would force the International Trade Commission to reconsider a 2021 final injury determination in an antidumping duty case on methionine from Spain and Japan overly restricts the ITC's authority and discretion, defendant-intervenor Novus International argued in its Feb. 8 response to the draft order (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT # 21-00562).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision upholding President Donald Trump's imposition of Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products provides further evidence that exporter Oman Fasteners will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued. Filing a motion to take judicial notice at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, the exporter said that in light of the Federal Circuit's decision it will be required to pay the Section 232 duties on its steel nails entered after Feb. 8, 2020 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to carry out expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 7 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S was invited to file the amicus brief by the Federal Circuit after it failed to appear regularly in the case. Taking the court up on its offer, the government claimed that the Commerce Department had preexisting authority for the regulation under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, though even if this preexisting structure did not exist, the URAA itself along with the Statement of Administrative Action's statements provide authority for expedited CVD reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The FTC filed a notice of supplemental authority Monday (docket 2:22-cv-00377) in U.S. District Court for Idaho (docket 2:22-cv-00377) in support of its opposition to Kochava’s motion to dismiss the agency privacy complaint (see 2212050061). The agency is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining Kochava from acquiring consumers’ precise geolocation data and selling it in a format that allows entities to track their movements to and from sensitive locations. Kochava asserts the agency may not seek injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of the 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act because that would exceed the scope of powers that can be constitutionally vested in an agency whose members are not removable at will by the president. But the FTC's notice said the Southern District of New York issued an order Feb. 1 “rejecting this same argument” in FTC v. Roomster, said the commission. The case against Kochava supports the FTC’s argument “that its authority to bring this action under Section 13(b) is constitutional,” it said. Though the FTC recognizes the Roomster opinion is "not binding" on the Idaho district court, the agency believes the court “may find its discussion informative and its reasoning persuasive,” it said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 30 - Feb. 5:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: