Solar cell importer Greentech Energy Solution cannot argue both that it suffered no injury on its goods until CBP issued a notice of action and that it was not required to file a protest with CBP since the agency's actions were purely ministerial, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 16 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Addressing Greentech's claims that its actions were not untimely nor improperly brought under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, the government said Greentech's Administrative Procedure Act claim must identify the specific final agency action it is challenging (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 16 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
There are other ways to achieve separate rate status in an antidumping duty review beyond filing a separate rate application, exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire argued in a Nov. 13 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer and exporter argued against the government, which claimed that Jin Tiong was not eligible for a separate rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China since it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. challenged exporter Risen Energy Co.'s motion to amend its complaint to add a challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to treat Article 26(2) Tax Exemption Program as countervailable. Filing a brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9, the government said the motion to amend "is futile, and thus lacks merit" since Risen "failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this claim and none of the limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply" (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00153).
The Commerce Department's decision to include importer Precision Components' goods in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China cuts against the "clear language of the scope" and Commerce's "historic treatment of the scope," Precision said in a Nov. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).
The parties in a fraud case involving consumer chargeback requests agreed that Global E-Trading and its officers Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton are permanently enjoined from providing chargeback mitigation services to any covered client, said a stipulated order Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-00796) for permanent injunction, monetary and statutory relief and final judgment filed by the defendants and by the FTC and the Florida Department of Legal Affairs in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. The FTC and Florida attorney general alleged in an April 12 complaint (see 2304130013) that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by submitting misleading documentation in connection with disputing consumer chargeback requests on behalf of their clients, “ignoring red flags indicating that the documentation was misleading,” and effecting microtransactions that “artificially lowered a merchant’s overall Chargeback Rate by inflating the total number of transactions run through the merchant’s account.” Defendants are also enjoined from providing chargeback mitigation on behalf of themselves or others; assisting others in submitting documentation they should know is misleading or materially inaccurate or failing to disclose any information that Defendants know or should know is relevant and material; providing screenshots of webpages that are “materially different” from webpages consumers saw at the time of the transaction; and engaging in any prohibited tactics to avoid fraud and risk programs established by a financial institution, it said. Under the order, defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations; they admit facts necessary to establish jurisdiction, said the filing. Defendants waive any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act through the date of the judgment order and agree to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, it said. Plaintiffs and defendants waive all rights to appeal, challenge or contest the validity of the judgment order, it said. The final judgment amount includes $100,000 for civil penalties and $50,000 for Florida’s attorneys’ fees.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: