The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations should not be allowed to intervene in GreenFirst Forest Products' case contesting the Commerce Department's decision not to start a changed circumstances review, Greenfirst argued in an April 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The intervention bid should be tossed since the committee ignores the action that is currently before the court and is arguing against a case that doesn't exist, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).
The Court of International Trade didn't and couldn't take away the Commerce Department's statutory authority to use facts available over the content of countervailing duty review respondent Celik Halat's questionnaire response once the agency accepted it, three defendant-intervenors argued in a May 5 reply brief. Celik Halat's responses were deficient over its reported use of the General Investment Incentive Scheme (GIIS) Customs Duty Exemption Program, warranting partial adverse facts available, the brief said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00050).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 6 affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling in a customs spat over tobacco wraps. Submitting an opinionless judgment order, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes affirmed the trade court's decision to allow the results of a particular customs test into evidence used to weigh the tobacco wraps.
The Federal Maritime Commission needs cooperation from the trade and logistics community to engage in meaningful enforcement, FMC Chairman Daniel Maffei said. Speaking last week at the annual National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America conference, Maffei said that he has been frustrated that "a lot of people expect the FMC to intervene on the side of small shippers" and don't understand the limits of the commission's authority.
Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and are in fact ordinary customs duties, meaning they should be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to exporter Nippon Steel Corporation's arguments attempting to overturn the trade court's prior ruling on the issue in three other cases, DOJ argued that Section 232 duties are imposed to address imports that threaten national security and not to boost the economic welfare of U.S. industries, making them non-remedial (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00533).
The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade to sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case accepting minutes-late submissions, given that no party filed comments opposing the remand. Submitting its May 5 comments at CIT, DOJ said Commerce fully followed court instructions in accepting the late submissions and reverting to partial adverse facts available rather than full AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).
The Court of International Trade should disregard the government's motion to dismiss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid, Rimco argued in a May 4 reply brief. Since the importer's case is really a constitutional challenge over excessive fines, Rimco argued that it properly filed its action as a response to CBP's assessment of the AD/CVD rather than the Commerce Department's calculations of the duties (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
8th Amendment AD/CVD Challenge Should Be Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction, Proposed Intervenor Argues
The Court of International Trade should toss steel importer Rimco's challenge to the antidumping and countervailing duties it paid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, proposed defendant-intervenor Accuride argued in a May 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The case should be dismissed because CIT isn't the proper jurisdiction for the importer's challenge to the Commerce Department's decisions, the company argued (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).