The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 9-15:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission used an incorrect interpretation of the word "likely" when finding that revoking the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia would likely lead to the recurrence of material injury to the domestic U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, Australian exporter BlueScope Steel argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Jan. 13, BlueScope also said the ITC erred by cumulating Australian imports with other countries' imports in the injury review (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty respondent Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial moved on Jan. 11 to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade over late-submitted questionnaire responses in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial v. United States, CIT # 22-00177).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Jan. 12 oral arguments expressed skepticism over claims from antidumping respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. (ZMC) in its bid to rebut the presumption of government control and win a separate rate in an antidumping duty review. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmy Reyna and Todd Hughes questioned whether ZMC's ownership structure could ever be truly free of government control, calling it "implausible." At another point in the arguments, DOJ attorney Kelly Krystyniak said that given the combination of China's corporate laws and ZMC's ownership, it may be impossible to rebut the presumption of government control and that ZMC has no inherent right to be able to rebut it (Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2257).
Three cases that were suspended pending the resolution of an action over whether protests are needed to apply retroactive Section 301 exclusions continue to be stayed pending resolution of the massive Section 301 litigation, according to a Jan. 6 order from the Court of International Trade (Trebbianno v. U.S., CIT # 20-00135) (Westport v. U.S., CIT # 20-00190) (Uniflex Church Furnishings v. U.S., CIT # 20-03571).
The Office of Foreign Assets Control Dec. 30 fined a multinational Danish-based refrigeration manufacturer more than $4.3 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran, Syria and Sudan. Danfoss, which also sells air conditioners and other cooling and heating products, illegally directed customers in all three countries to make payments through a U.S. financial institution, OFAC said in an enforcement notice. The company also made illegal payments to entities in Iran and Syria.
The Bureau of Industry and Security issued a 180-day temporary denial order Dec. 13 against three people and two companies for illegally sending controlled exports to Russia as part of a Moscow-led sanctions evasion scheme. Along with the denial order, DOJ indicted the three individuals, along with others, on charges related to the illegal exports, including money laundering, wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiring to defraud the U.S.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard claims over whether Krakatu POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was an authority or directed by an authority for the purposes of a countervailing duty investigation. During oral arguments Jan. 11 before Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll, counsel for CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition, Kenertec Power System and the U.S. also argued over whether Indonesia's Rediscount Loan Program was an upstream subsidy and thus countervailable (Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03687).