A Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter, along with its affiliates, filed for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade, arguing the trade court failed to address the company's alternative arguments on a host of issues. The issues, which include claims about the specificity of an alleged benefit and whether certain input suppliers are government entities, are fully briefed and "ripe for decision," the motion for rehearing said (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT #16-00009).
A Canadian exporter's challenge of antidumping cash deposit instructions should be dismissed since the company can obtain a review of the cash deposit rate through an already initiated USMCA panel review, DOJ said in a March 4 brief. What the exporter, J.D. Irving, really wants is to not pay current cash deposits at the current rate, DOJ told the Court of International Trade. Even if the court finds it does have jurisdiction over the cash deposit instructions, the case still should be dismissed since the payment of cash deposits doesn't establish standing since it isn't an injury, DOJ said (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are outside the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, DOJ said in a March 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Reflection's window wall systems aren't dependent on other systems and are inserted between slabs to cover an aperture from floor to ceiling, making the goods distinct from curtain wall units and thus "finished goods kits" that qualify for the finished goods kits scope exclusion (Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT #21-00253).
CIT Ruling Over Alleged Untimely Filed Protests Leads to 'Nonsensical' Practice, Importer Tells CAFC
The Court of International Trade erred when it found that importer Strategic Import Supply's protests were untimely filed, the tire importer said in its March 4 opening argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In fact, SIS should not have had to file the protest in the first place, since the U.S. should have provided the necessary refunds for overpaid countervailing duties without any other filings from SIS, the company said. The result of the trade court's ruling is a practice both "nonsensical" and unsupported by the statute's language (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade shouldn't dismiss a lawsuit brought by MS Solar over the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions issued following an antidumping duty administrative review, MS Solar said in a March 2 brief. The court has repeatedly found it has jurisdiction for these claims under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, according to the brief, which also took issue with DOJ's claim that the action's true nature is to challenge the final ADD rate (MS Solar Investments v. U.S., CIT #21-00303).
A U.S. district court in California dismissed a case brought by commercial beekeeping farms that alleged that a group of importers engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. honey market by flooding it with "fake honey." Judge Troy Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California said the plaintiffs, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, did not make specific enough claims as to allow the defendants a chance to mount a defense (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. #21-00582).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).