The Department of Justice requested in a June 3 filing that the Court of International Trade clarify what the correct standard of review is for the court's remand of a trade adjustment assistance case (see 2105040032). The clarification request comes after a May 4 CIT remand that found that the Labor Department failed to discuss or even reference the evidence of why trade adjustment assistance was necessary in its determination (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).
CBP may issue a penalty of up to $1.3 billion to Ford Motor Co. related to the company's classification of passenger wagons that were converted to Ford Transit cargo vans, Ford said in a June 3 Securities and Exchange Commission filing. "If such a claim is brought, CBP indicated that the penalty it may seek could be as much as $652 million to $1.3 billion," the company said. "In the event a penalty is ultimately imposed against us, the amount would be based on our level of culpability as determined by the courts. We intend to vigorously defend our actions and contest payment of any amounts set forth in the pre-penalty notice."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly adhered to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade by relying on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating a company's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping administrative review on solar cells, both the Department of Justice and plaintiffs in the case agreed in two filings of comments on the remand results. The change in surrogate data selection led to a dumping margin of 5.08% for mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. and the separate rate respondents, many of whom are also plaintiffs in the case (Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00176).
The Court of International Trade on June 2 stayed a case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination of antidumping duty evasion pending the resolution of a related case on the scope of the underlying AD order. Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden ordered that within 14 days of the resolution of the AD scope case, the Department of Justice and plaintiff Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. will file a status report and proposed briefing schedule. The related case on the scope ruling concerns whether dual stenciled pipe is covered under the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. In the motion to stay proceedings, Blue Pipe argued that if the scope ruling were deemed to be unlawful, “CBP’s determination of Blue Pipe’s evasion should also be deemed unlawful” (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00081).
CBP may issue a penalty of up to $1.3 billion to Ford Motor Co. related to the company's classification of passenger wagons that were converted to Ford Transit cargo vans, Ford said in a June 3 Securities and Exchange Commission filing. "If such a claim is brought, CBP indicated that the penalty it may seek could be as much as $652 million to $1.3 billion," the company said. "In the event a penalty is ultimately imposed against us, the amount would be based on our level of culpability as determined by the courts. We intend to vigorously defend our actions and contest payment of any amounts set forth in the pre-penalty notice."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results that, unprompted by court order, raised the antidumping rate for Indian steel exporter Venus Wire Industries, in a June 2 opinion. Though Judge Mark Barnett had in November only ordered Commerce to further explain its use of partial AFA in the underlying review, Commerce also changed its calculations to raise the AD rate on Venus for its stainless steel bar exports from India from 5.35% to 24.6%.
DOJ filed a motion with the U.S. Court of International Trade to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded “statutory authority” under the Trade Act when it ratcheted up the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, said the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 (in Pacer). USTR implementation of the duties in response to China’s “increasingly aggressive and discriminatory trade practices” was “wholly discretionary and thus non-justiciable” under the Trade Act, said DOJ. China’s refusal to “cease its unlawful practices,” and instead pressure the U.S. to drop its Section 301 tariffs by adopting retaliatory measures, “revealed” that the “initial action” imposing the Lists 1 and 2 duties was “insufficient,” it said. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX-Jasco declined comment Tuesday. Their Sept. 21 HMTX-Jasco complaint argued that the Trade Act doesn’t authorize the defendants “to litigate a vast trade war for however long, and by whatever means, they choose.”