Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire does not have standing to appeal a Court of International Trade decision barring the government from collected AD cash deposits from exporter Oman Fasteners at the "punitive" 154.33% dumping rate, Oman Fasteners argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mid Continent is not subject to the injunction and cannot establish legally protected interest in the injunction, "which merely keeps Oman Fasteners in business until a final rate can be determined," the brief said (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act, a follow-up bill to OSRA from original co-sponsors Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., and Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., passed 58-1 out of the House Transportation Committee May 23.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
Canadian Exporter Revives Dismissed Complaint Against Commerce's Cash Deposit Instructions on Appeal
The Court of International Trade should not have dismissed a case involving Commerce's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada for lack of jurisdiction, J.D. Irving said in its May 22 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1652).
Any plaintiff in the massive Section 301 litigation looking to dismiss their case must comply with the court's rules to file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the case, the Court of International Trade said in a text-only order. The court clarified that this rule, USCIT Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), applies in the present action since the U.S. filed a Master Answer in the overarching test case, meaning the answer is considered to be filed in each Section 301 case "now pending or hereafter filed" in the court. Certain companies have begun dismissing their challenges to the China tariffs following the trade court's ruling that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not violate the law when implementing them (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act, a follow-up bill to OSRA from original co-sponsors Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., and Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., passed 58-1 out of the House Transportation Committee May 23.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted importer DSM Food Specialties USA's voluntary bid to dismiss its case challenging the classification of its CaroCare beta-carotene in 30% oil suspension form. The company filed suit in 2005 to argue that the imports should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.000, free of duty, rather than subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4% (DSM Food Specialties USA v. United States, CIT # 05-00043).
Five affiliated Manhattan telemarketing entities agreed to pay Pennsylvania $250,000 to settle allegations they inundated Pennsylvanians with hundreds of thousands of unwanted robocalls (see 2211030056), said a consent petition for final decree filed Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-01551) in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Ranjan signed an order Thursday approving the petition and closing the case.