The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade shouldn't reinstate the Commerce Department's exclusion of four Canadian lumber exporters as part of the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada, the CVD petitioner said in an Oct. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner, the committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, said that the four exporters' "mere assertions" that changed circumstances exist, warranting the retroactive exclusion of the companies, is not enough (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 denied a petition for writ of certiorari regarding one question on Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's customs broker license exam. Chae took the test in April 2018 and subsequently took the result through multiple levels of administrative and judicial appeal before seeking Supreme Court review. He will remain one correct answer shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 denied a petition for writ of certiorari regarding one question on Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's customs broker license exam. Chae took the test in April 2018 and subsequently took the result through multiple levels of administrative and judicial appeal before seeking Supreme Court review. He will remain one correct answer shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).
Comments are due Nov. 13 to the Commerce Department on the scope of coverage of its newly begun antidumping duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam (A-570-158, A-301-806, A-247-004, A-331-804, A-533-920, A-560-840, A-475-846, A-580- 918, A-557-826, A-201-860, A-583-874, A-549-847, A-489-850, A-520-810, A-552-837), and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey (C-570-159, C-560-841, C-201-861, C-489-851).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 26 order granted a two-week extension for exporter Tau-Ken Temir and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration to file their reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan. TKT and the trade ministry recently also asked the court for an additional 7,000 words in the reply brief, prompting the court to stay briefing until it can resolve the motion for the expanded word count (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for approval to use 3,000 more words in its reply brief in a case on the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping. The government said each of the three issues raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature." It said they cover two accounting issues and the intricacies of a statistical method, creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The Commerce Department flipped its position on remand to find that exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. didn't use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though it did continue to find that the exporter benefited from the provision of caustic soda and synthetic yarn for less than adequate remuneration (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).
The Commerce Department's decision to initiate an antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina was based on data from an "anomalous period" in 2020 with "unprecedented market conditions" that were unrepresentative of the OCTG market, plaintiffs led by Tenaris Bay City said in an Oct. 20 support motion at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).