The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs Reserve Right to Oppose US' Inadvertent Liquidations in Solar Panel Tariff Exclusion Case
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Court of International Trade “bent over backwards” to allow the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to comply with its Administrative Procedure Act obligations in its imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods when it remanded the duties to the agency for further explanation on the rationale for the actions it took in the context of the comments it received, said an amicus brief filed Sept. 14 in the massive Section 301 litigation from the Retail Litigation Center, CTA, the National Retail Federation and four other trade associations. With USTR’s “non-responsive” answer to the remand order, the time has come for the court “to impose the normal remedy for unlawful agency action” and to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, it said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
CBP must refund the interest accrued on duty overpayments, phone case importer Otter Products argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Having had the duty overpayments themselves refunded following prior court action at CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Otter took to the court again to request the interest. The plaintiff argued that since the full payments were never made voluntarily, it is entitled to a refund of the interest accrued on the payments made in connection with prior disclosures, and that the statute unambiguously mandates the maximum penalty for prior disclosures involving negligent conduct (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 5-11:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, Tau-Ken Temir, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, will appeal a July Court of International Trade ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 11 notice of appeal. In the case, the trade court ruled the Commerce Department properly rejected Tau-Ken Temir's questionnaire responses for being untimely, as they were filed an hour and 41 minutes beyond the deadline (see 2207150035). The court said it is unclear why the plaintiffs failed to file an extension request earlier in the process rather than an hour and 10 minutes before the deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., CIT #21-00173).
CBP unlawfully began an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into CEK Group since the allegation submitted by M&B Metal Products didn't support the start of the investigation, CEK Group argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. To start an EAPA action, there must be an allegation with specific information -- something CBP did not receive from M&B, the brief said. The plaintiff said the Royal Brush v. U.S. case at the trade court "has now constrained CBP" in EAPA cases from making decisions based on confidential information not made available to the parties via public summaries -- something CBP allegedly did in CEK Group's case (CEK Group v. U.S., CIT #22-00082).
CBP unlawfully changed exporter J.D. Irving's antidumping duty cash deposit rate on its 2020 entries months after the rate had been confirmed when no administrative review had been requested of the exporter, J.D. Irving argued in a Sept. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Because the change came after assessment instructions had been issued for the 2020 review period, it improperly set a cash deposit that was not based on same dumping margin as its most recent assessment rate, the exporter said (J.D. Irving v. U.S., CIT #22-00256).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: