The Court of International Trade on June 14 dismissed a suit from three conservation groups seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of the totoaba fish, which threatens the endangered vaquita porpoise. The parties reached a settlement in April under which the agency found that Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (see 2306020054). Due to this finding, the U.S. could impose an embargo on any goods coming from Mexico.
The Court of International Trade on June 14 dismissed a suit from three conservation groups seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of the totoaba fish, which threatens the endangered vaquita porpoise. The parties reached a settlement in April under which the agency found that Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (see 2306020054). Due to this finding, the U.S. could impose an embargo on any goods coming from Mexico.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. has yet to appear in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum wire and cable from China brought by importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer. The appeal concerns a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it erroneously issued to Jin Tiong (see 2303200039). In a text-only notice to the U.S., the Federal Circuit said that the government has failed to file an entry of appearance, which could lead to dismissal "or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department's new practice related to questionnaire response extensions supports exporter Tau-Ken Temir's claims against the agency's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines, TKT told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a notice of supplemental authority (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied customs broker license exam test taker Byungmin Chae's combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the appellate court's opinion landing him just one question short of passing the exam taken in April 2018. The court said Chae's petition was referred to the panel that heard the case, comprising Judges Pauline Newman, Sharon Prost and Kimberly Hughes, and was then circulated to all the judges in regular active service. A month prior, the court rejected duplicates of Chae's petition seemingly filed in error.
The U.S. is asking Mexico to review whether an Industrias del Interior (INISA) garment factory near Aguascalientes is coercing workers by favoring workers who support the company's collective bargaining agreement and disciplining -- and dismissing -- workers if they support the union Sindicato de Industrias del Interior. The administration made the announcement June 12. It is the first complaint not in the auto sector.
The complaint from Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) alleging TikTok is violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by duping Arkansas citizens about the risks of using TikTok is “a run-of-the-mill state-court case,” said Griffin’s brief Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01038) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in El Dorado in support of his motion to remand. Griffin wants the case returned to Union County Circuit Court where it originated March 28 before TikTok removed it to federal court May 9 (see 2305100036). TikTok argues the case belongs in federal court “because TikTok’s conduct also implicates foreign policy and national-security issues that the federal government might address,” said the brief. “In other words, TikTok argues that the sheer scope of the problems it has created enables it to choose its preferred forum,” it said. The argument is “meritless," as another federal court “recently recognized in the exact same posture,” it said. Indiana also sued TikTok for violating that state’s consumer-protection law, it said. “As in this case, Indiana alleges that TikTok collects users’ personal information without telling them that this information might be shared with China,” it said. “As in this case, TikTok removed to federal court on the theory that the state’s state-law claim arose under federal law,” creating federal-question jurisdiction under Title 28's Section 1331, it said. The court rejected that theory and remanded to state court, noting TikTok failed to point to any question of federal law that would need to be decided, it said. “That analysis necessarily applies here, where TikTok filed functionally the same Notice of Removal as it filed there,” said the brief. Federal-question jurisdiction “requires a question of federal law, “and no such question can be found” in the Arkansas complaint, it said. Whether TikTok is liable under Arkansas law for deceiving Arkansas consumers doesn’t depend “on the construction of any federal statute or other source of federal law,” it said. “Nor is it one of the limited subjects that arise under federal common law,” which the complaint doesn’t invoke, it said: “This case is a pure matter of state law and should be remanded to the state court where it was filed.”
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade correctly dismissed appellant Glob Energy's claims for lack of jurisdiction in an Enforce and Protect Act case in which CBP said the company and others were transshipping Chinese xanthan gum through India to avoid antidumping duties, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CBP liquidated Glob's entries and the company did not appeal the liquidations "through channels that would permit the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over those entries," and as a result, the liquidations become final and unreviewable, the brief said (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).