The Department of Justice removed Stephen Tosini as its principal counsel in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving Section 232 duties and replaced him with Meen Geu Oh, according to a Nov. 22 motion for leave to file an amended entry of appearance. The motion was then approved the following day by the court. DOJ said that Tosini "has just commenced a detail with another component within the Justice Department," and thus could not continue to serve as lead counsel in the case (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. , #21-2066).
The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
More than $14 billion worth of Chinese raw cotton and cotton and cotton blend textiles was exported in 2019 from five major textile companies with ties to Xinjiang forced labor, according to a recent British study, conducted with the help of international scholars and Chinese reviewers and partly funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The study, called "Laundering Cotton: How Xinjiang Cotton is Obscured in International Supply Chains," analyzed shipping data from Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Cambodia, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia and the U.S., tracing how goods went from China to one of those countries directly, or from China to Hong Kong to the foreign factory location, and then from there, to U.S. shelves.
The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 15-21:
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a challenge of CBP's alleged failure to issue full Section 301 refunds for lack of jurisdiction since the case was untimely filed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 19 brief. Plaintiff FD Sales' rebuttal says that the 180-day deadline to file a case that runs from a protest denial does not apply in this case since CBP did not actually deny the protest, but that the protest can be considered denied in part due to CBP's failure to give the full refund. DOJ countered, in the case's most recent brief, that this argument must be rejected since it is "undisputed" that FD Sales filed its summons more than 180 days after the date of the decision (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).
CIT Permits Ag Groups' Amici Brief in Case Over ITC Fertilizer Injury Determination Despite Pushback
The Court of International Trade permitted a group of U.S. agricultural trade associations to file an amicus brief in a case over the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. After facing pushback from the U.S. and the petitioners, J.R. Simplot Company and The Mosaic Company, Judge Stephen Vaden said the amici "represent the actual users of that fertilizer, the farmers, i.e., those who ultimately pay the price of the tariffs imposed" (OCP S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00219)