Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Size-reduction machinery should be classified as duty-free machines for "crushing, grinding, or screening" rather than as "other electromechanical" machines, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Vecoplan said in a Nov. 14 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of Oct. 31 - Nov. 6 and Nov. 7-13:
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The Commerce Department admitted that it was "improper" to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) data in an antidumping duty investigation. Submitting its remand results on Nov. 14 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reopened the record and added Mexican wage rate data. The agency also found on remand that exporter Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. met the burden for achieving separate rate status. The result of the remand is a zero percent dumping margin for respondents Ningbo Master International Trade Co., Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. and now Ulix (New American Keg v. United States, CIT #20-00008).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: