The Court of International Trade doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a textile company’s dispute with CBP, saying the company sought relief under the wrong statute, Judge Timothy Stanceu held in a March 10 opinion. The trade court found Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, didn’t show why the denied protest challenge should be filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(a). Berger filed a notice of appeal the next business day.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's subsidy calculation errors in a countervailing duty review on multilayered wood flooring from China resulted in an inaccurate CVD rate for Fine Furniture and other Chinese wood flooring exporters, Fine Furniture argued in a March 9 motion for judgment af the Court of International Trade (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00210).
Dismissing Sea Shepherd New Zealand's and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's challenge of an expired comparability finding for New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries would allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to evade review and take similar action in the future, the conservation groups said in a March 9 brief (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).
The Court of International Trade issued a pair of opinions on March 10. In one, brought by Printing Textiles, Judge Timothy Stanceu dismissed the customs action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The company filed the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, challenging CBP's denial of its protests on its Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric. Printing Textiles said that the entries weren't subject to the antidumping order and that the Commerce Department had initiated a scope request on the company's imports. Stanceu said jurisdiction could have been available under Section 1581(a) or Section 1581(c) should Commerce find the imports to be in the scope of the order.
Sage Telecom’s allegations that Halsted Financial Service violated the Texas Business & Commercial Code are speculative and insufficient to state a claim, said the defendant’s Wednesday motion to dismiss (see 2303020063) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas (docket 3:23-cv-00463).
The Court of International Trade should halt proceedings in an antidumping duty case filed by HiSteel until after the deadline to appeal the trade court's recent decision in Stupp v. U.S., AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products said in a March 9 motion. In Stupp, CIT said that the Commerce Department adequately addressed all questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the use of the Cohen's d test as part of the differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping (see 2302270049) -- a "virtually identical" issue to one argued in HiSteel's case, Nucor said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00142).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the Mexican government to review a Unique Fabricating, Inc. plant in Queretaro, Mexico, based on allegations that the factory is obstructing workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, the Department of Labor said in a March 6 news release. Mexican labor union Transformacion Sindical recently filed a complaint under the USMCA Rapid Response Mechanism alleging Unique Fabricating, a U.S.-based company, denied it access to the facility and interfered with organizing efforts, DOL said.
A Court of International Trade ruling that allowed the Commerce Department to use the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out masked dumping (see 2302270049) should be given weight in a separate case contesting Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on thermal paper from Germany, DOJ said in a March 7 filing at the Court of International Trade. Matra Americas and intervenor Koehler Paper argued in their September motion for judgment that Commerce’s use of the d test was flawed because it fails to take into account assumptions of sample size, distribution, and variance (see 2209160055) (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).