The Commerce Department must either conduct verification in an antidumping case, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it didn't conduct virtual verification in the face of a request to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 2 decision. Judge Stephen Vaden expressed doubts over whether Commerce could complete the latter option, given that the agency failed to respond to the request for virtual verification. Commerce said no verification was conducted due to COVID-19-related restrictions. Vaden lambasted Commerce over this rationale given high-level U.S. officials' trips to India, the location of the would-be verification.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.
The 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “impose obligations of opportunities to comment by stakeholders and reasoned decision-making” by the federal agencies involved, said attorney Joseph Palmore of Morrison & Foerster on behalf of amici CTA, the National Retail Federation and five other trade associations in Section 301 oral argument Tuesday before the U.S. Court of International Trade. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “complied with neither” statute in the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings, Palmore told the court's three-judge panel.
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.
OCP North America, the U.S. subsidiary of a Moroccan fertilizer exporter, penned a letter to U.S. farmers urging their support of the company's court case against the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco. The letter, sent through public relations firm Cogent Strategies, linked to a website also established by Cogent to serve as a platform for farmers to express their dissatisfaction with the order. The case the letter references is at the Court of International Trade and is challenging the International Trade Commission's injury determination that led to the imposition of the CVD order.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 24-30:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties on its entries since they were not subject to the ADD order at the time, the company said. Goodluck participated in the antidumping duty investigation into cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India in which it was assigned a 33.7% cash deposit rate. The respondent then challenged this decision at CIT, which eventually overturned Commerce, affirming a final zero percent margin for Goodluck. The result was Commerce revoking the ADD order for Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).