The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. opposed an expedited briefing schedule from Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. in the company's case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar's motion would hold the government's motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the company's bid for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. said "it is reversible error for the Court to delay consideration of its jurisdiction until after ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission "failed to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings" when it found that freight rail couplers from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry despite an earlier finding to the contrary, importer Strato argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strato v. U.S., CIT # 23-00158).
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).