The Court of International Trade on Dec. 15 dismissed importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's case challenging CBP's antidumping evasion finding against the company's cased pencil imports. Judge Mark Barnett said Royal Brush had to file a protest with CBP to allow the court to order reliquidation for its entries, which the agency illegally liquidated, so CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. The company imported five entries, two of which were assessed the AD duties and three of which were not.
India appealed an April World Trade Organization panel report that said its duties on information and communications technology goods destined to the EU violated India's tariff commitments, the WTO announced Dec. 14 (see 2304170018). The EU, Japan and Taiwan each have brought cases to the WTO to dispute the Indian tariffs, and India filed a similar appeal of Japan's case against the tariffs in May (see 2305250056). The WTO can't address the appeals because it doesn't have a functioning appellate body (see 2311200078).
India appealed an April World Trade Organization panel report that said its duties on information and communications technology goods destined to the EU violated India's tariff commitments, the WTO announced Dec. 14 (see 2304170018). The EU, Japan and Taiwan each have brought cases to the WTO to dispute the Indian tariffs, and India filed a similar appeal of Japan's case against the tariffs in May (see 2305250056). The WTO can't address the appeals because it doesn't have a functioning appellate body (see 2311200078).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A September Court of International Trade decision is instructive in how to consider the Commerce Department's methodology for assessing de facto specificity regarding Quebec's On-The-Job-Training tax credit in a countervailing duty proceeding, exporter Marmen Energy Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).
The Commerce Department didn't give antidumping duty respondent PT. Asia Pacific Fibers a "reasonable" chance to address issues found by Commerce in the company's verification responses, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 12. Because Commerce never issued a verification report to Asia Pacific, Judge Richard Eaton said the agency must report the "methods, procedures, and results" of verification and let the company address any issues.
The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the Dec. 11 text-only order, the trade court gave the parties until June 30, 2024, to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-03869).
New guidance from the Biden administration this week warned shippers, forwarders, brokers, ship owners and others involved in maritime and other transportation industries to better know their cargo, saying they each have a “responsibility” to craft their own “rigorous” compliance programs. The 10-page sanctions advisory specifically calls out freight forwarders, saying they play a “key role” in compliant supply chains.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 8 denied the government's motion to dismiss Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar's suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List following a court order finding that CIT has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to inclusion on the UFLPA Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the motion was moot, denying it without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss after Ninestar's filing of its amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
A South Korean steel export company told the Court of International Trade that government intervention before and during its sale to new owners didn't constitute continuing government subsidies, saying the acquisition was still made at fair market value (KG Dongbu Steel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).