The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 6-12:
The International Trade Commission has terminated a Section 337 investigation into residential security systems, it said in a notice. The case (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1273) followed a June 2021 complaint by ADT, alleging that two of its patents on residential security monitoring and automation control panels were being violated by Vivint. Over the course of the investigation, one of the patents was dropped from the complaint. Vivint asked the ITC for summary determination of no violation on March 10, 2022. The ITC's Office of Unfair Import Investigations agreed with Vivint and ITC administrative law judge Monica Bhattacharyya issued her initial determination on April 22, finding no violation by Vivint. ADT filed a petition for review but on June 8, the commission declined to review Bhattacharyya's decision and terminated the investigation.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government may only file counterclaims at the Court of International Trade in cases that involve imported merchandise, NetJets said in a June 8 motion seeking dismissal of a DOJ counterclaim seeking liquidated damages from the company for its failure to collect customs user fees (CUFs) for airline ticket purchases (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 10 order invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department can conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The plaintiff-appellants, led by Fontaine Inc., filed their opening brief in February, seeking statutory cover for Commerce to perform the expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1021).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department in June 9 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade no longer found that a particular market situation existed in India regarding the price of hot-rolled coil. Making the switch under protest, Commerce said that since it found that a PMS no longer exists, the other remanded issues in the case are moot (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss an importer's lawsuit that improperly challenges CBP assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties rather than the underlying duty calculations done by the Commerce Department, the government said in a June 8 brief. The trade court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the true nature of importer Rimco's claim is a challenge to the amount of duties determined by Commerce rather than the enforcement by CBP, DOJ said. The protest and subsequent suit are an attempt to "hide its own failure to challenge Commerce's determinations when it had the opportunity" by essentially circumventing administrative avenues for addressing AD/CVD rate calculations, the government said (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
The Court of International Trade in a May 31 opinion made public June 10 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. The U.S. Steel Corporation filed the case to argue that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas for the antidumping duties paid on the subject entries by decreasing the invoice price by the amount of the duties, and that Commerce should've deducted from the exporter's U.S. price because of it. Judge Richard Eaton said this was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser," and that no evidence was presented that would prove the importer was reimbursed.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: