The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the weeks of June 26 - July 2 and July 3-9:
AT&T Global Services’ facts are “inaccurate” regarding breach of contract, said plaintiff EDN Global in a Thursday brief (docket 3:23-cv-00355) in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas.
The Obert Law Firm moved its offices in New York, according to a notice submitted to the Court of International Trade. The firm's new address is 196-55 McLaughlin Ave., Holliswood, New York 11423. Obert filed the notice of a change in address in nine cases.
The Court of International Trade on July 7 remanded a case contesting an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The still-confidential order from Judge M. Miller Baker directs Commerce to reconsider its surrogate country selection process and to consider countries at a “comparable level of economic development” as potential surrogates on an equal basis with countries Commerce deems to be at “the same level of economic development” (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380).
The number of antidumping or countervailing duty cases brought repeatedly by the same industry is growing, according to a new analysis by Craig Thomsen, an economist at the International Trade Commission.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5 dismissed importer Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest suit concerning attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, in an injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. Amsted Rail filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal a few days prior in the suit that the Court of International Trade previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057).
The number of antidumping or countervailing duty cases brought repeatedly by the same industry is growing, according to a new analysis by Craig Thomsen, an economist at the International Trade Commission.
The Commerce department’s decision to use the all-others rate from an earlier antidumping duty investigation on quartz surface products to calculate the rate for the non-selected respondents in the first administrative review should be remanded to the agency, AD petitioner Cambria said in a June 30 motion at the Court of International Trade (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).