The U.S. asked for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would make the brief due on Dec. 21. The extension request is the second of its kind from the government, after it received a 60-day extension from the court (see 2308140026). Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, Pratik Shah and Matthew Nicely of Akin Gump, opposed the extension "absent some medical, family, or similar intervening justification," arguing that thousands of companies are still paying the large Section 301 duties. The plaintiff-appellants consented to the first extension (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Canadian exporter Midwest-CBK filed a consent motion seeking to dismiss its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." or "domestic sales." The exporter said it "will not be able to provide further evidence" on the second phase of the litigation, which "would allow for determination of a dutiable value based on the "[Free on Board] Buffalo, New York" prices at which the company sold its imports to its U.S. customers. The company wants the issue resolved so it can "further the case's other issues on appeal" (Midwest-CBK v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154).
The Court of international trade dismissed a case brought by Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand), which challenged the Commerce Department's determination that diamond sawblades produced in Thailand by Diamond Tools with Chinese cores and Chinese segments were circumventing antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China, according to an Oct. 10 filing (Diamond Tools Technology (Thailand) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00143).
The Supreme Court should take up a case on whether President Donald Trump lawfully expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum duties to cover "derivative" products to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive, petitioner PrimeSource Building Products argued. Filing a brief in response to the government's defense, PrimeSource claimed that its case gives the court a chance to "do something about" the government's position that the executive can exercise both Congress' legislative powers and the judiciary's "interpretive responsibilities" (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-69).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 2-8:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 10 order granted a U.S. consent request for a remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to deny LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on specialty steel products. The government said in its motion for remand that it will either grant the requests and exclude the product from the scope of the steel and aluminum duties, deny the requests or "some combination of both" (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 22-00245).
The U.S. must further explain its decision not to add certain documents to the record in a case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of importer Southern Cross Seafoods' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Timothy Reif said in an Oct. 5 opinion made public Oct. 10 that the government must address inconsistencies in its reasons for not including information showing how the NMFS obtained outside legal opinions included in the administrative record and information identifying who authored a relevant legal opinion.
Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.