The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Feb. 2 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for another 60 days to file its opening brief in a case on the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China. All parties consented to the request (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
Technology companies, trade groups, think tanks and researchers urged the government to be cautious as it evaluates its semiconductor-related export controls and prepares new ones, warning that misguided restrictions could cede American technology leadership to China, hurt the competitiveness of U.S. companies and raise the complexity of an already fraught compliance landscape.
The U.S. said in a Jan. 25 stipulation that it won't oppose an argument from Auxin Solar and Concept Clean Energy that the Court of International Trade has the power to tell the U.S. to reliquidate certain entries in a suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties covering solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries. The U.S. stipulation covers entries that were unliquidated as of the date of an order from CIT that accepts DOJ's stipulation but that subsequently liquidate before the case is resolved (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
The Commerce Department’s “ex parte” meeting with a domestic producer prior to a scope ruling was “egregious” and demonstrated how the scope ruling process is unfair, a tilemaker said Jan. 31 at the Court of International Trade in response to comments from the U.S. and a domestic petitioner on its motion for summary judgment (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
The petitioner in an antidumping duty case supported its motion for summary judgment Jan. 31 by saying that, since the passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, the Commerce Department is no longer required to consider accuracy when setting antidumping margins. On the same day, an exporter and several importers also fought opposition to their own motions for judgment (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
The following trade-related lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Three importers of trailer wheels filed complaints in the Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 contesting the Commerce Department’s determination that their wheels were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties and the importers had attempted to evade them (Trailstar LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00021; Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00020; Dexter Distribution Group LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00019).
Importer Scottsdale Tobacco launched a case at the Court of International Trade to contest CBP's denial of its drawback claim on its Canadian-origin paper-wrapped cigarettes. Filing a complaint on Jan. 30, the importer said its drawback claim "met the requirements" for a substitution unused merchandise drawback of the federal excise taxes it paid, since it exported the cigarettes from Florida less than five years after the relevant imports (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).
A whistleblower in a False Claims Act challenge, Brutus Trading, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its case so the court can clear up its own 2023 decision that found the government can voluntarily dismiss a qui tam FCA case brought by a whistleblower after not initially intervening in the case, and that the dismissal would be carried out under Rule 41(a) (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).