The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in the massive litigation on the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. The importers who challenged the tariffs didn't file an appeal of the matter to the Supreme Court prior to the issuance of the mandate. Last month, the court upheld the tariffs, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C) (see 2509250028). The court said the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.
Should the Supreme Court rule that the tariffs administered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are not valid, importers of record, who could potentially receive duty refunds, may also end up in legal battles with others who shared in the importer's tariff burden, founding member and principal of Sandler and Travis said during Flexport's Nov. 12 webinar on tariff trends.
DOJ has increasingly relied on an undervaluation theory for trade enforcement cases brought under the False Claims Act in its increased attempt to police trade fraud and may be looking to include "corporate integrity agreements" as part of trade-related FCA settlements, attorneys at Faegre Drinker said during a Nov. 13 webinar that focused on increased trade enforcement.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Petitioner Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).