An importer’s lawsuit claiming it should have been assessed AD duties at a lower import-specific antidumping duty rate has run into jurisdictional issues, and a recently filed amended complaint from the importer that was accepted by the Court of International Trade on June 9 aims to clear them up.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of May 24 - June 6.
The Commerce Department issued the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Taiwan (A-583-854). The agency said the only company under review, Create Trading Co., Ltd., had no exports of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the period under review. If Commerce's “no shipments” finding for Create Trading is continued in the final results, subject merchandise from the company will continue to enter at AD rates set in the most recent previous review, and any entries filed with Create Trading's case number entered July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, will be liquidated at the all-others rate. Commerce will make its final decision when it issues the final results of this review, currently due in October.
Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 sample case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to hear oral argument on the preliminary injunction they seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. “This unprecedented litigation concerns billions of dollars, over 3,800 separate lawsuits, and an even larger number of individual plaintiffs,” said Friday's motion (in Pacer). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful (see 2104250002). DOJ opposes the injunction and stands by its refusal of the stipulation due to the “uncertainty” of the case law on refund relief (see 2105160001).
Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 sample case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to hear oral argument on the preliminary injunction they seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. “This unprecedented litigation concerns billions of dollars, over 3,800 separate lawsuits, and an even larger number of individual plaintiffs,” said Friday's motion (in Pacer). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful (see 2104250002). DOJ opposes the injunction and stands by its refusal of the stipulation due to the “uncertainty” of the case law on refund relief (see 2105160001).
The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion in an antidumping case on welded line pipe from South Korea sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results in part and remanding in part, according to a June 7 filing. According to a letter filed by Judge Claire Kelly, the public version of the decision is expected either on or shortly after June 15 once all parties review bracketed information to determine its level of confidentiality. The case, originally filed by Husteel Co., concerns, among other things, Commerce's finding of a particular market situation in Korea for welded line pipe, the agency's reliance, or lack thereof, on a mandatory respondent's third country sales to calculate normal value and Commerce's reclassification of a respondent's reported losses associated with suspended production as general and administrative expenses.
Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 sample case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument on the preliminary injunction they seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. “This unprecedented litigation concerns billions of dollars, over 3,800 separate lawsuits, and an even larger number of individual plaintiffs,” their June 4 motion said. They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The government opposes the injunction and stands by its refusal of the stipulation due to the “uncertainty” of the case law on refund relief, it said May 14 (see 2105170007).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from June 1-4 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed a case from Imperia Trading involving the first sale treatment of the company's imports from China, based on a joint stipulation filed by Imperia and the Justice Department, according to a June 4 order from Chief Judge Mark Barnett. Prior to the dismissal, Barnett had denied Imperia's motion to stay proceedings until a related opinion came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the status of first sale valuation for imports from a non-market economy (see 2106030046) (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00142).