The Commerce Department's decision to reject part of antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes' submissions for being nearly two hours late due to COVID-19-related technical difficulties constitutes an abuse of discretion, the respondent said in an April 8 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion said the technical difficulties were an "extraordinary circumstance," and acceptance of the late filing would have been inconsequential to Commerce's ability to timely conduct the investigation. The consequences for the rejection of the filing are grossly disproportionate to the error made, it said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. U.S., CIT #21-00587).
Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, had to file a protest to properly establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries, DOJ argued in an April 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to SIS's arguments that there was nothing to protest at the time since the countervailing duty rate was not final, DOJ said that this position is incorrect since the importer should have moved to suspend liquidation during the CVD review. Failing to do so precluded the ability to judicially challenge the liquidations, the brief said (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The International Trade Commission initiated an investigation on alleged violations of Section 337 based on importation and sale of interactive fitness products, including stationary exercise bikes, treadmills, elliptical machines, and rowing machines (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1310). The complaint filed March 3 (see 2203080047), and supplemented March 21, accuses Free Motion Fitness, ICON Fitness Corp., IHF Holdings, iFIT and NordicTrack, of infringing on five patents owned by Peloton. Peloton is seeking a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The ITC has assigned Chief Administrative Law Judge Clark Cheney to oversee the case.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available over antidumping duty respondent Euro SME's reporting of certain U.S. inland freight data was illegal, Euro said in an April 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent filed the case to contest Commerce's final results in the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Malaysia. Euro further challenged Commerce's decision to give only a partial credit for revenue associated with its U.S. movement expenses and the use of partial AFA over the reporting of certain home market freight data (Euro SME SDN Bhd v. U.S., CIT #22-00108).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in using an allocation method for Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's (SMPC) certification expenses that covered the whole period of review, SMPC said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By doing so, Commerce violated its own practice of using the most detailed transaction-specific expense data and distorted the data, the exporter said (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT #22-00107).
The government has no cause of action to pursue counterclaims once liquidation is finalized, and the challenge of a denied protest at the Court of International Trade does not reopen the window for reliquidation at higher duty rates, Cyber Power Systems said in an April 5 brief. The brief is in support of a previous motion to dismiss a counterclaim by the government seeking to reclassify its imported cables from China at a higher duty rate (see 2203180042) (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00200).
The Commerce Department had to draw a line somewhere, and its use of a test to distinguish the production activities of producers and fabricators to determine industry support in antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India is in line with the law and prior court precedent, DOJ said in a reply brief filed April 6 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: