The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its Lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, said an order in docket 1:21-cv-52 signed Wednesday by the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210030). Akin Gump lawyers for test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products urged the court to stick to its original June 30 deadline, arguing USTR shouldn’t be given more time to do a new post hoc review of the submitted Lists 3 and 4A comments and hearing testimony. If USTR needs an additional deadline extension beyond Aug. 1, DOJ “should address in greater detail” USTR’s reasons for the request, said Wednesday’s order. It cited language in the April 1 remand order that the agency may further explain only the justifications it previously gave for imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs without introducing new rationales that didn’t exist before. A joint status report from DOJ and the plaintiffs is due 14 days after the remand results are filed, including a proposed schedule “for the further disposition of this litigation,” said Wednesday’s order.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission correctly found domestic industry was injured by imported mattresses in a set of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the commission said in a June 13 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Despite arguments that the ITC failed to account for differences between mattresses-in-a-box and flat-pack mattresses, the commission said that it reasonably found the market segments interchangeable in AD/CVD investigations on mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam (CVB, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00288).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade said in a June 22 order. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210042).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade said in a June 22 order. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210042).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 in a June 17 opinion denied exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing's and importer C&U Americas' bid for an injunction against cash deposits at the antidumping duty rate decided in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood to succeed on the merits or suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the U.S. government.
New Hampshire-based company Intertech Trading Corp. violated the law when it failed to file export information for equipment it sent to Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. alleged in a filing at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.The parts, which included laser assemblies, were "falsely described" as aquarium and multimedia parts and valued at lower amounts than their actual worth, DOJ said.
CBP reasonably denied customs broker test taker Shuzhen Zhong credit for two questions on the customs broker license exam, the U.S. argued in a June 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In the brief, DOJ discussed the two questions at issue, defending CBP's rulings on the classification of glazed ceramic mosaic cubes and how to obtain relief from CBP's detention of a shipment of 1,000 handbags bearing a mark that copies but is not identical to a registered and recorded mark (Shuzhen Zhong v. United States, CIT #22-00041).