The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Trade Justice Education Fund and two other environmental nonprofits are asking the Biden administration not to challenge the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, at the World Trade Organization.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A proposed voluntary remand of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be allowed to proceed as is, over an importer's objections, DOJ said in an Oct. 2 brief to the Court of International Trade. DOJ filed a motion to remand the case in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., in which the court said CBP violated an EAPA party's due process rights by not granting them access to business confidential information (see 2309150011) (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
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 Court of International Trade's decision ordering CBP to reliquidate customs entries flatly cuts against a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that ruled against reliquidation after a court case led to a higher dumping rate for a different exporter, retail giant Target told the appellate court (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).
A series of opinions from the Court of International Trade concerning whether the U.S. can file a counterclaim in classification cases do "not seem to change the fundamentals of classification litigation," customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in a blog post. If the opinions are sustained on appeal, potential government claims seeking a different classification than the one initially used at liquidation by CBP may just be moved "from the counterclaim bucket to the defense bucket," the post said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 25 - Oct. 1:
U.S. steel companies "confuse" a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) seeking reconsideration of an International Trade Commission negligibility decision due to new facts with an "attack on the original negligibility decision," Erdemir said. Filing a reply brief to the steel companies' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual jurisdiction," Erdemir said the true nature of its action challenges the ITC's "refusal to initiate a reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the neglibitily determination" of hot-rolled steel from Turkey "in light of the successful appeal of Colakoglu" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).