The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade set a briefing schedule in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand following the departure of respondent Saffron Living Co. from the case. Plaintiffs, led by U.S. company Brooklyn Bedding, are to compile and serve their soft appendix within seven days of the Oct. 6 order and then are to file their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results within seven days of the appendix being filed. The U.S. will file its response no later than 15 days after the remand comments (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).
Importer Spirit Aerosystems' reading of the statute pertaining to its drawback claim for unused substitution drawback would lead to "unpredictable and often absurd results," the U.S. said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Spirit's argument that CBP's implementation of the statute "misconstrues basic tariff terms, renders entire sections" of the law "inoperative, and requires the omission of certain words from the drawback statute," the government claimed (Spirit Aerosystems v. United States, CIT # 20-00094).
The Commerce Department made a host of errors in its antidumping duty calculations in an administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, including the improper collapsing of pipemaker Maquilacero and auto-parts manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos (TEFLU), the two companies argued in a Sept. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Maquilacero v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00091).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 5 in a case from importer Southern Cross Seafoods pertaining to a U.S. move to ban imports of Patagonian toothish, referred to as Chilean sea bass, from the South Georgia fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Per a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until Oct. 10 to review any potentially confidential information. The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which has been fully briefed, indicating that the opinion addresses this question, though the docket doesn't indicate which way the judge ruled (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).
The U.S. asked for an extended stay in a customs penalty suit against Greenlight Organic and its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh given that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York opened a criminal investigation on the evidence recovered during a search of Aulakh's residence. Filing a status report in the Court of International Trade, the government said the case should be stayed until Jan. 2, after which the U.S. will file another status report "updating the Court on whether a continued stay is needed" (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).
The Commerce Department made multiple errors when it miscalculated benchmark data and its use of adverse inferences in a countervailing duty review on multilayered wood flooring from China, Chinese wood flooring exporters and consolidated plaintiffs Fine Furniture (Shanghai) and Double F said in an Sept. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief raised similar points to one filed by respondent Baroque Timber Industries two weeks earlier (see 2309180042) (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00210).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Trade Justice Education Fund and two other environmental nonprofits are asking the Biden administration not to challenge the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, at the World Trade Organization.