The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 14-20:
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit asked the Court of International Trade for an injunction barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from participating in a set of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations before the International Trade Commission. Filing a motion for injunction pending appeal after the trade court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., argued that they're likely to succeed on appeal since, at the very least, they raised serious legal questions, warranting a stay order from the court. The plaintiffs also claimed that the court erred by illegally shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to identify specific times ARC shared confidential information with Pickard and Buchanan (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00307).
Two Commerce Department redeterminations excluding certain ductile iron flanges from the scope of a 2003 antidumping duty order were found unsatisfactory by the Court of International Trade, since they "are not in a form in which the court could sustain" them, according to two Nov. 18 orders by Judge Timothy Stanceu. Since Commerce said on remand that it will issue a revised scope ruling if the remand submissions are affirmed, the agency is looking for approval of a decision that is not a scope determination but "instead is preliminary to such a decision." As a result, the decision "could not be put into effect should it be sustained," and Commerce would "escape direct judicial review," the judge said.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation says the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports have been fruitless, and antidumping and countervailing duty laws also are inadequate to counter the wide variety of abuses from China -- industrial espionage, forced technology transfer, discrimination against foreign sales in China, as well as enormous subsidies. "It is time for the U.S. government, ideally working with allies, to craft and implement a new set of trade defense instruments," ITIF Founder Robert Atkinson wrote in a white paper released Nov. 21.
No lawsuits have been filed at the Court of International Trade since Nov. 16.
The Court of International Trade erred when it dismissed a case brought by importer Rimco over alleged "excessive fines" leveled by CBP for the combination of antidumping and countervailing duty rates on steel wheels from China, Rimco argued in a Nov. 14 brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Viewtech Inc. on Nov. 16 filed a notice of dismissal in 10 of its tariff classification cases at the Court of International Trade. Filed between 2008 and 2011, the cases concerned the classification of Viewtech's digital satellite receivers. CBP liquidated the entries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8528.12.97 or 8528.71.40, though the importer claimed they should be classified under subheadings 8528.12.92 or 8528.71.20 (Viewtech Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 08-00250, 08-00252, 08-00253, 08-00254, 09-00116, 09-00146, 09-00173, 09-00419, 10-00112, 11-00008).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."