The government's claim that a group of Canadian softwood lumber exporters shouldn't be able to intervene in an antidumping duty case is based on "an unreasonably narrow, absurd, and constitutionally problematic reading of" the statute on parties entitled to participate in civil actions, the exporters argued (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 18 text-only order granted the government's request for 60 more days to file their opening brief in a case on whether the statute of limitations had passed on an action seeking to collect on a customs bond from surety firm American Home Assurance Co. (United States v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied a motion seeking to dissolve an existing injunction against liquidation and another seeking to impose a new one in a case involving the antidumping duty rates for several Indian quartz countertop exporters.
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that Commerce could use one antidumping duty review mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to calculate another’s AD when no better information was available. The opinion comes at the end of a long CIT case challenging the Commerce Department’s 2020 administrative review of the AD order on certain oil county tubular goods (OCTG) from Korea, filed by plaintiff Hyundai Steel in May 2022 (see 2205100033).
Wireless technology companies, satellite operators and a host of broadcast industry entities pitching ATSC 3.0-based methods responded to the FCC Public Safety Bureau’s call for partners to test ways to deliver wireless emergency alerts without using cell towers, according to comments filed in docket 22-160 by Monday’s deadline. “In some cases, mobile networks can be disrupted by the very emergency to which a WEA pertains,” said NAB. “A successful partnership with the Bureau could further bolster the case for ATSC 3.0 abroad” and encourage manufacturers to include 3.0 chips in their phones, said Sinclair’s ATSC 3.0 subsidiary One Media. Qualcomm, Skylo Technologies, PBS, 5G broadcast company XGen and others suggested their own solutions.
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Solar panel exporters are hoping to extend the deadline to file a petition for reheraing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on whether President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Asking the court for 14 more days to file the petition, the exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, said "good cause" exists for the extension (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
A domestic antidumping duty petitioner challenged intervention of more companies in another ongoing case over a 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Canadian softwood lumber products (Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00206).
The U.S. said in a Dec. 15 motion to dismiss that CBP has discretion in deciding how to pursue investigations on forced labor allegations, including how long those investigations may take, how much information CBP will reveal and whether action will be taken at all (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).