A voluntary remand is not needed in a case concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that allegedly have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, plaintiffs Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society argued in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. NOAA's call for a voluntary remand "is a red herring" and would let the agency "avoid the repercussions of its decision to not rule on the" New Zealand government's 2021 comparability findings application by the end of the year -- a move that delays the consideration of new information over the Maui dolphin, the U.S. said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 28 blocked imports of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. In an opinion that cited renowned conservationist Rachel Carson, Judge Gary Katzmann found plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing two claims in the case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, warranting the injunction. The injunction covers snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from the New Zealand set-net and trawl fisheries.
An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
Semiconductor companies are still awaiting licensing decisions on their chip-related activities involving China under the U.S.’s new export controls, with some concerned that licenses awarded to their competitors could hurt their revenue. In earnings calls and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission this month, U.S. chip and technology companies said they continue to prepare for drops in sales to China and that they fear Chinese customers may soon replace them with alternative suppliers, causing some U.S. companies to permanently lose their market share in China.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. must pay more than $100,000 in unpaid duties on an entry of honey from China imported in 2002, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit, filed under Section 1582, echoes another case brought against Aegis that looks to collect duties on entries of garlic that liquidated in 2006 (see 2211010037). The surety in that case has argued that the statute of limitations has passed for the action, claiming that the U.S. has a six-year window to file such action that runs from the date of liquidation. The U.S. says that this window starts from when CBP makes a demand for payment (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Commerce Department did not err in its scope ruling that found that two-ply hardwood plywood fell under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, the government said in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief asked the court to sustain the underlying scope ruling (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00049).
Fish importer Southern Cross Seafoods on Nov. 21 moved for an expedited briefing schedule and consideration of its case at the Court of International Trade concerning its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass. Southern Cross said that failure to expedite the case would deprive the importer of all its U.S. sales in the coming year as it is unable to import and sell Chilean sea bass until the embargo on its imports is lifted. Further, the fish imports are perishable goods, so Southern Cross said it needs a decision by March 2023 to have any meaningful relief (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).
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.
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade, led by Amsted Rail Co., amended their complaint after a similar case of theirs against the International Trade Commission was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint added a specific alleged instance in which ARC gave its former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now of Buchanan Ingersoll, information that is now being used against it in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).