The Court of International Trade dismissed a case contesting the International Trade Commission's antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea for lack of prosecution (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00345). Plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca filed three other cases contesting the ITC's injury determination and the related antidumping duty investigation by the Department of Commerce (see 2301180047). Unlike the other cases, the Dec. 16 summons was never followed up on by the plaintiffs before it was dismissed by the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject plaintiff-appellants' bid for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case, defendant-intervenor-appellee Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued in a Jan. 19 reply brief. The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to both establish good cause to expedite the appeal and show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent the accelerated schedule, since the underlying injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission will be subject to judicial review after the proceeding is finished, the coalition said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
The Court of International Trade illegally applied a lower standard for its "substantially dependent" test when finding that certain subsidies apply to Spanish olive growers, improperly using a post-codification administrative decision to apply the lower standard, some Spanish olive growers argued. Filing their opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Jan. 17, the plaintiff-appellants said allowing Commerce to gauge its decisions against its own later rulings and not the unambiguous statute "would frustrate the core tenets of U.S. administrative law and allow Commerce to amend legislation through its own administrative process" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to an AD order's revocation. The trade court said the Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when enforcing the filing deadline. The appellate court affirmed without an opinion.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 18 opinion sent back an antidumping review over the Commerce Department's decision to reject AD petitioner Nucor Tubular's ministerial error comments as untimely. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the exception to the requirement that comments be timely filed applies in this case since Commerce's "unintentional errors became apparent only in the Final Results" of the AD review. Since Nucor should have been allowed to submit its comments on the ministerial error, the court remanded the review to consider the error "and respond accordingly," the judge said.
The Commerce Department erred when it treated Section 232 steel and aluminum duties as ordinary customs duties and deducted them from antidumping duty respondent Borusan's export price and constructed export price, the respondent argued in a Jan. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00005).