The U.S. cannot escape Congress' plain meaning in requiring CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, "no matter how many new arguments DOJ throws into its brief on appeal," appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ tries to "rewrite history," seeing as its interpretation "flies in the face of the statute's command to distribute 'all interest,'" the brief said (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).
The International Trade Commission incorrectly found that imports of cut-to-length plate from Brazil did not threaten domestic producers, in its five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, domestic producer Cleveland-Cliffs said in a March 31 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 23-00050).
The court should grant defendant AT&T’s unopposed motion to stay discovery and the joint proposal deadline pending its motion to dismiss EDN Global’s fraud claim against it, said the carrier’s Friday motion (docket 3:23-cv-00355) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. EDN sued AT&T in July in Superior Court of Fulton County in Georgia, with allegations including tortious interference with contract and business relations, fraud, trade secrets theft, theft by deception and taking, conversion, Georgia racketeering, and breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationship, said the complaint. AT&T moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and to transfer the venue, which plaintiffs opposed. On Feb. 14, U.S. District Court Judge J.P. Boulee of Northern Georgia granted AT&T a motion to transfer. Boulee didn’t rule on AT&T’s motion to dismiss; the motion remains pending. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants met March 24 to discuss whether the case could be settled, said the motion, saying the parties agreed to stay discovery and a joint proposal deadline until resolution of the motion to dismiss.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).
The Commerce Department legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).
Walleye Group, lead plaintiff in the insider-trading lawsuit against former top Intelsat officers and shareholders, can’t provide “a single specific fact” to show what information former Chairman David McGlade learned, how he learned it, or when, before he participated in the divestiture of $246 million in Intelsat stock, said McGlade’s reply brief (docket 4:20-cv-02341). The brief was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland in support of the defendants’ Jan. 19 motion to dismiss Walleye’s second amended complaint (SAC) (see 2301190044).
Liquidation of imported picture frame moldings should have been suspended pending antidumping and countervailing duty administrative reviews, importer Larson-Juhl told the Court of International Trade in a March 30 complaint. The complaint contests CBP's denial of Larson-Juhl's protests concerning the liquidation and assessment of duties on nine entries subject to AD and CVD orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China (Larson-Juhl US v. United States., CIT # 23-00032).
The statute of limitations in customs penalties runs from the date of entry, not from the date that the importer directed the violation to be committed, the Court of International Trade said in a March 31 decision that denied a motion to dismiss a fraud case against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
As filing day approaches, the calendar is marked with a big figurative red X, multiple alerts have been set and hours have been spent combing through documents to make sure the Commerce Department’s ACCESS system accepts the submission. But sometimes, despite all the preparation, something derails the process and the documents are turned in late. Suddenly, a routine part of the job has morphed into every lawyer’s nightmare -- a missed deadline.