The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Liquidation may not be final in cases where CBP is "acting at the behest of another agency," law firm Neville Peterson said in a Sept. 13 blog post commenting on the Court of International Trade's ruling in AM/NS Calvert v. U.S. In that decision, the trade court entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties may not be final, given that the case contests the applications of product-specific exclusions granted by the Commerce Department and not by CBP (see 2309070037).
The Commerce Department made several errors in its handling of the resumption of an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico after the termination of a suspension agreement, Mexican tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente said in a Sept. 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT # 19-00204).
The U.S. filed a motion to remand an Enforce and Protect Act case in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, in which the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA party's due process rights by not granting them access to business confidential information. Filing the Sept. 14 motion in a Court of International Trade case filed by importer Newtrend USA Co., the government claimed that a limited remand is needed because the opinion concerns "the treatment of confidential information" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Groups of exporters and importers filed complaints in 19 separate cases this week challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China covering exports from Vietnam.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission's decision to find that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry was not backed by substantial evidence, given its finding in a separate, previously conducted investigation that the couplers just from China did not injure the U.S. industry, importer Wabtec Corp. argued in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
The Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear importer Greentech Energy Solution's claims challenging CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 motion to dismiss. The "protest procedure" at CIT and "judicial review" under Section 1581(a) are not "manifestly inadequate" to review Greentech's claims, barring review under Section 1581(i), the government said (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Aug. 28 - Sept. 3 and Sept. 4-10: