The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 21-27:
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a March 28 filing at the Court of International Trade so it can reconsider its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The remand is appropriate given Commerce's "evolving practice" on the topic, the brief said. In a separate countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found that it was able to verify that a respondent's U.S. customers did not use the program without certain information requested from the Chinese government (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. declined to take up a key case over the president's power under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. Rejecting a petition from importer Transpacific Steel and several other companies, SCOTUS in effect upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said that the president can increase tariffs under Section 232 beyond procedural time limits.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade denied pig farrowing crate importer Ikadan System USA's motion for an extension of time to file its monition for judgment but stayed the case until the court sorts through the importer's motion to supplement the record. Ikadan requested the extension since it found out that certain items weren't in the administrative record. Instead of extending the briefing schedule as the plaintiff requested, Judge Leo Gordon stayed the briefing in the case until the matter is sorted out. In response, the U.S. filed a motion stating its lack of opposition to Ikadan's bid to supplement the record despite not conferring with the Justice Department. Ikadan then filed a confidential brief giving the court the missing information (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Commerce Department's decision to find that the South Korean government provided electricity below cost for certain tariff classes but still say that electricity provision conferred a non-measurable benefit is illegal, U.S. steel company Nucor Corporation said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).
German exporter BGH Edestahl Siegen's claim that its higher costs preempt any countervailability findings don't comport with U.S. countervailing duty law, U.S. manufacturer Ellwood City Forge said in a March 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment, Ellwood said CVD statute and the Commerce Department's regulations don't dismiss subsidy programs that alleviate high costs that may be high due to government policies themselves (BGH Edestahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT #21-00080).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote USTR Robert Lighthizer Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed Thursday in the Section 301 litigation docket (1:21-cv-52) at the U.S. Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held there Feb. 1 (see 2202010053).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: