No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Defendant-intervenor ABB Enterprise Software will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding a zero percent antidumping rate for respondents Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Hyosung Corporation. ABB filed its intent to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 7 notice at CIT. In the case, Chief Judge Mark Barnett only upheld the Commerce Department's remand after the agency dropped its adverse inference against Hyundai and Hyosung, as part of the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea (see 2107120032). Commerce initially applied total adverse facts available to Hyundai, finding that the company understated its home market gross unit prices by failing to consistently report parts of its home market sales as foreign like product.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 30 - Sept. 5:
Furniture importer Aspects Furniture International has a protectable interest in an antidumping duty evasion case at the very least due to "goodwill, reputation, and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities" concerns, the importer said in an Aug. 30 filing in the Court of International Trade. Responding to the Department of Justice's arguments countering its initial motion for judgment, AFI also said that, contrary to the government's position, CBP's limited administrative avenues to submit written arguments during the investigation were insufficient from a constitutional perspective to reject AFI's due process violation claims (Aspects Furniture International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories for Aug. 30 - Sept.3 in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department violated the law in its refusal to accept antidumping respondent OCTAL's new factual information attempting to refute the assumption of affiliation between it and one of its U.S. customers, OCTAL argued in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Following a voluntary remand proceeding meant to give OCTAL a shot at commenting on the affiliation determination, OCTAL blasted the agency for not including its new facts in the case attempting to prove that it is not affiliated with the U.S. customer with which it has an exclusive supply agreement (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).
Language disagreements remain between the Section 301 plaintiffs and the government in proposing modifications to the July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order at the U.S. Court of International Trade that would eliminate the need for a Customs and Border Protection repository for customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said the two sides in a joint status report (in Pacer) Friday. It was the last date proposed modifications in the PI order were due. DOJ wants the order worded to say that refunds of liquidated entries would be available only to importers of record who paid the tariffs, if plaintiffs prevail on the merits at the end of the litigation, it said. It makes “no sense” for plaintiffs to oppose the language, as the plaintiffs said they do, because “only importers of record who are plaintiffs could possibly seek reliquidation and, if approved by the courts, be directly affected by any reliquidation,” said the government. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded that while the “vast majority” of the Section 301 cases involve importers of record, some of the stayed cases involve plaintiffs that don’t fit that description. The issue hasn't been raised in recent status conferences and filings, and modifying the PI order is not the “proper vehicle” for resolving it, they said. Plaintiffs “stand ready” to continue working with the government on “streamlining the process for implementing the refund remedy in preparation for the end of this litigation” if the plaintiffs win, said the Akin Gump attorneys. But DOJ took a different tone. “In our view, plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of the Section 301 cases, and no such resource-intensive task will be necessary” at the end of the trial to properly dole out tariff refunds, it said. “In light of the extensive resources we have already dedicated to compliance with the preliminary injunction, unless ordered by the Court, we have no reason to continue working on a reliquidation or refund process unless and until the plaintiffs prevail on the merits.” Akin Gump's lawyers, on the other hand, said they defer to the court “on the proper schedule for such efforts.”
The Commerce Department switched its original determination and relied on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by an antidumping respondent in Sept. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the second remand in the case, Commerce made the change after the court sustained the other seven issues under contention in the first remand (Husteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00112).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: