Printed circuit board assembly importer Triumph Engine Control Systems moved to overturn the dismissal of four of its cases issued by the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 9 filing. Claiming that it clears the standard for reversing dismissals due to lack of prosecution set in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the importer requested an extension of the time to remain on the Customs Case Management Calendar (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. U.S., CIT #19-00108, #19-00109, #19-00110, #19-00130).
Commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation's request for leave to reassert Section 1581(i) jurisdiction in a customs challenge should jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) be unavailable should be denied, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 10 comments at the Court of International Trade. Further responding to its motion to partially dismiss NJA's case, DOJ said that the court lacks jurisdiction for the spat under Section 1581(i) and that NJA fails to even allege that this jurisdiction is available in its response (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products “persuasively argue” that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “clearly exceeded its authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed the “massive” lists 3 and 4A tariffs on “virtually all imports” from China “without connecting them to the underlying investigation of China’s trade practices,” said the Consumer Technology Association, the National Retail Federation and five other trade groups Aug. 9 in an amicus brief in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products “persuasively argue” that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “clearly exceeded its authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed the “massive” Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on “virtually all imports” from China not previously dutied, “without connecting them to the underlying investigation of China’s trade practices,” said CTA, the National Retail Federation and five other trade groups Monday in an amicus brief (in Pacer) in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty investigation did not comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion, plaintiff Nucor Corporation said in Aug. 6 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The remand results "articulate but don't properly apply a standard that would comply with the statutory adequate remuneration standard," Nucor said, opposing Commerce's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel via cheap electricity (POSCO v. United States, CIT #17-00137).
Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products “persuasively argue” that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “clearly exceeded its authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it imposed the “massive” lists 3 and 4A tariffs on “virtually all imports” from China “without connecting them to the underlying investigation of China’s trade practices,” said the Consumer Technology Association, the National Retail Federation and five other trade groups Aug. 9 in an amicus brief in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Monday’s the deadline for Section 301 plaintiffs and the government to deliver the U.S. Court of International Trade a joint status report on how the sides are progressing to resolve their disagreements over proposed rules to create a Customs and Border Protection repository for importers to request suspended liquidation of customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. The court’s July 6 preliminary injunction order freezing the status of unliquidated entries instructed CBP to have the repository up and running by July 20 (see 2107060080), but two postponements amid all the disagreements pushed the deadline back a month. Chief Judge Mark Barnett used the court’s status conference last Monday to urge the sides to seek “middle ground” (see 2108010002). Monday also is the deadline for plaintiff attorneys in the roughly 3,800 Section 301 complaints to file amicus briefs supporting Akin Gump’s arguments for sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the tariffs are unlawful and should be refunded with interest. With an estimated 300 lawyers or more representing the complaints of 6,500 individual importers, the court’s April 13 scheduling order had ground rules to try to keep the amicus filings from getting out of hand. Lawyers must limit each brief to 5,000 words, it said. “Any amicus brief must be limited to the claims raised” in the HMTX-Jasco sample case “and must not repeat arguments already made” by Akin Gump, it said. The scheduling order gave DOJ until Oct. 1 to respond to the briefs, and Akin Gump until Nov. 15 to counter. “The court does not anticipate extending these deadlines absent extraordinary circumstances, which may include an exceptionally large number of amicus briefs presenting distinct arguments,” it said.