Antidumping duty petitioners submitted various supplemental authorities in Amsted Rail Co.'s case over its former counsel's purported "betrayal" in using a former client's information against it in a later injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. The petitioners, collectively referred to as the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers, included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch discussing whether ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now-partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, committed an ethics violation. Frisch said that the D.C. Bar Rule 1.9 concerning conflicts of interest does not apply to ARC since the only party affected by the injury proceeding is ASF-K de Mexico, a Mexican maquiladora factory affiliated with ARC that did not formerly employ Pickard, and that ARC's lawsuit is an "abuse of the litigation process" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases in a series of orders on Nov. 1 and 2. One case, filed by Incase Design Group, concerned the classification of sports armband cell phone holders, with the plaintiff vying for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.99.90. No explanation was given for the dismissal. The second action, brought by Conrad Sales Group, concerned the classification of frozen tilapia filets, and was dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. The third case, brought by Tali Corp., concerned the classification of glassware and also was dropped due to a lack of prosecution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 order deactivated U.S. Steel Corp.'s recently filed appeal over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. U.S. Steel filed the appeal amid a spat over a motion from plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. to reconsider the court's opinion. Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file an appeal runs from the order disposing of the last remaining motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1109).
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 Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) and ASF-K Mexico again took to the Court of International Trade, this time against the Commerce Department, in a bid to get the trade court to disqualify its former law firm from further participation in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and Mexico. ARC and ASF-K said that Commerce's refusal to disqualify Buchanan Ingersoll and timely rescind access to business proprietary information (BPI) violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiff's right to due process (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 24-30:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S.'s case looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago is prohibited under the doctrine of impairment of suretyship, surety Aegis Security Insurance Company argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Since CBP "unreasonably delayed" in looking to collect on a bond that liquidated in 2006, interest liability was created "that was entirely unnecessary, and impaired Defendant's rights against third parties." CBP's action barred any possible recourse against the main obligor and its reinsurer, so by the time Aegis was billed, "the importer was nowhere to be found," necessitating a finding of impairment of suretyship, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Unreliable lab reports by CBP call into question suspended cases, regardless of the outcome of a test case, New Image Global, Inc., argued in two separate Oct. 28 complaints to the Court of International Trade (New Image Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00271 and 15-00316).