The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear an Enforce and Protect Act case even though the entries in question have liquidated, plaintiff-appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 27 opening brief. "Absurd results would also surely follow if the CIT does not have jurisdiction over liquidated entries," the plaintiff-appellants claimed while vying for jurisdiction for their EAPA case under Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondents HiSTeel and Dong-A-Steel failed to exhaust their administrative remedies over their claims that the Commerce Department illegally used the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked dumping," AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs had seven weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released an opinion calling the use of the test into question until the end of the deadline for factual information, yet the respondents did not add the opinion to the record (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT #22-00142).
The Court of International Trade should expedite briefing on exporter Oman Fasteners' bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued in a Dec. 26 brief, saying the "severe, ongoing, and irreparable harm" caused by a "draconian 154.33% duty rate" threatens to put the company out of business. In its unopposed motion, the AD respondent said it already has had to stop all U.S. shipments of its goods subject to the duties and unless it can "quickly resume U.S. sales, and maintain them during the pendency of this case," it will "face insolvency through default on its existing financial obligations" or suffer irreparable harm (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).
The International Trade Commission violated the law by failing to either conduct a changed circumstances review or reconsider its original antidumping neglibility decision in a sunset review, Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a group of three related complaints at the Court of International Trade. After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury proceeding, Erdemir said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00349, #22-00350, #22-00351).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 19-25:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).