The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision upholding President Donald Trump's imposition of Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products provides further evidence that exporter Oman Fasteners will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued. Filing a motion to take judicial notice at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, the exporter said that in light of the Federal Circuit's decision it will be required to pay the Section 232 duties on its steel nails entered after Feb. 8, 2020 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to carry out expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 7 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S was invited to file the amicus brief by the Federal Circuit after it failed to appear regularly in the case. Taking the court up on its offer, the government claimed that the Commerce Department had preexisting authority for the regulation under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, though even if this preexisting structure did not exist, the URAA itself along with the Statement of Administrative Action's statements provide authority for expedited CVD reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 30 - Feb. 5:
The FTC filed a notice of supplemental authority Monday (docket 2:22-cv-00377) in U.S. District Court for Idaho (docket 2:22-cv-00377) in support of its opposition to Kochava’s motion to dismiss the agency privacy complaint (see 2212050061). The agency is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining Kochava from acquiring consumers’ precise geolocation data and selling it in a format that allows entities to track their movements to and from sensitive locations. Kochava asserts the agency may not seek injunctive relief under Section 13(b) of the 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act because that would exceed the scope of powers that can be constitutionally vested in an agency whose members are not removable at will by the president. But the FTC's notice said the Southern District of New York issued an order Feb. 1 “rejecting this same argument” in FTC v. Roomster, said the commission. The case against Kochava supports the FTC’s argument “that its authority to bring this action under Section 13(b) is constitutional,” it said. Though the FTC recognizes the Roomster opinion is "not binding" on the Idaho district court, the agency believes the court “may find its discussion informative and its reasoning persuasive,” it said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations had run out by the time the case was filed, and because the government has not established how Liu was connected to the allegedly fraudulent scheme, Liu argued in a Feb 7 brief at the Court of International Trade (U.S. vs. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
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.
Comments are due to the International Trade Commission Feb. 16 in a potential Section 337 case involving imported golf club head adapters (ITC docket no. 3667), according to a Federal Register notice.
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: