CBP unlawfully changed exporter J.D. Irving's antidumping duty cash deposit rate on its 2020 entries months after the rate had been confirmed when no administrative review had been requested of the exporter, J.D. Irving argued in a Sept. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Because the change came after assessment instructions had been issued for the 2020 review period, it improperly set a cash deposit that was not based on same dumping margin as its most recent assessment rate, the exporter said (J.D. Irving v. U.S., CIT #22-00256).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion from defendant Zhe "John" Liu to strike various paragraphs of the U.S.'s complaint in a Section 592 penalty case, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief. DOJ argued that Liu cannot show that his knowledge and experience -- the content of the paragraphs contested by Liu -- are not material to the issues in the case and thus should not be struck (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).
The Commerce Department disregarded the potential for countervailing duty respondent CS Wind Vietnam to manipulate its CVD margin through its relationship with its Korean parent company, plaintiff Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC) said in Sept. 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting its arguments to the Court of International Trade, WTTC said Commerce's use of CS Wind Korea's reported sales value in the sales denominator was inconsistent with the agency's regulations and past practice (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).
The Court of International Trade denied a motion by Midwest-CBK that asked the court to have two issues appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Sept. 7 order from Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The order said that the issues at hand did not meet the requirements for an interlocutory appeal because they involved questions of fact, not purely law (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00154).
The Commerce Department in a pair of remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade stuck by its position to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After the trade court remanded the case for a second time, finding that the previous remand results were not submitted in a form the trade court could sustain, Commerce offered a further explanation for its decision to find that the thresholds fit under the finished merchandise exclusion to the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 7 paperless order instructed the plaintiff, Environment One, in a case over a denied Section 301 exclusion request to file a supplemental brief over whether a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision is relevant to the current action (Environment One Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00124).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A Canadian softwood lumber producer cannot claim to be a successor-in-interest to another lumber company still in existence, the government argued in a Sept. 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (GreenFirst Forest Products, v. United States, CIT # 22-00097)