The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 stopped the International Trade Commission from disclosing the business proprietary information (BPI) of a group of plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Co. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the plaintiffs' move for a temporary restraining order in an action concerning whether the ITC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights by giving its former lawyer access to its BPI in his new role as counsel to parties with adverse interests to ARC (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
A complaint in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against CTIA and numerous cellphone manufacturers -- including Motorola, AT&T Mobility and Cricket Wireless -- over a pastor’s death from brain cancer should be dismissed because it is preempted by federal law, the trade group and companies said in a joint motion Monday in docket 2:21-cv-0092. The plaintiffs have argued the FCC safety certification process is based on inaccurate information provided by cellphone makers, and so shouldn’t preempt the case. Other defendants, such as TIA and Chinese company ZTE, argued Monday in separate filings that the court had no jurisdiction over them.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 3-9 and Oct. 10-16:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Advantus Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its case seeking to obtain Section 301 tariff refunds at the Court of International Trade. The case was previously stayed pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials v. U.S. and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. U.S. In these cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the trade court's ruling that a protest was needed to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions (see 2209060035). Both the Federal Circuit and CIT said that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties (Advantus Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00055).
The Court of International Trade should stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, given the former counsel's alleged "betrayal," the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By not blocking the release of the BPI, the ITC is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights, the brief said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Wire rod importer Kiswire asked the Court of International Trade to consolidate two cases, in an Oct. 14 motion. Similar facts "surround all of the entries" and the two complaints stem from the same agency decision on similar protests, Kiswire said. Both complaints challenge the denial of protests seeking antidumping duty refunds on wire rod from South Korea (see 2210130066). Kiswire said that CBP refused to refund the cash deposits and asserted that the entries were deemed liquidated at a date that would make the protests untimely filed. The cases proposed for consolidation present identical counts and promote "economy of judicial resources" and "avoid duplication of effort" if consolidated, Kiswire said. The government has indicated it doesn't consent to consolidation at this time and intends to file a response to the motion, Kiswire said (Kiswire Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00181; Kiswire Inc. and Kiswire Pine Bluff Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00285).
Plaintiffs in the nine class actions filed so far accusing Samsung of negligence in the summer’s data breaches asked the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to transfer and consolidate the cases in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and assign them to District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, said their Oct. 7 motion (case no. 3005).