The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."
A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.
The U.S. said that negotiations between it and importer Root Sciences over whether the company's imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia" have "achieved substantial progress." Filing for its fifth extension of time over its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. said that it and Root have been discussing how to settle the matter ever since the importer's informal proposal for negotiations (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).
A protest of a CBP decision must be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP or the date CBP denies an importer's refund request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Feb. 6 opinion. Upholding a Court of International Trade decision, judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes dismissed a case from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, that challenges a CBP assessment of countervailing duties, on the grounds that the company failed to file a protest.
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 2 order remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's mandate in the case (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).
Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society moved to toss one count of their complaint in a case seeking an import ban on certain fish taken from New Zealand's West coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. The plaintiffs filed a partial motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 2, arguing that the third count of the complaint, which is a challenge to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 comparability findings on this area in New Zealand's waters, is moot since the findings expired at the end of 2022 (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The Commerce Department's recent remand decision not to treat a countervailing duty respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier is relevant for exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's case at the Court of International Trade, the exporter argued. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on Feb. 2, Kaptan said that Commerce's remand decision in Nucor Corp. v. U.S. is "at odds with Commerce's analysis in the instant case" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
Fourteen months after proponents of cellular-vehicle-to-everything use of the 5.9 GHz band asked the FCC for the first waivers so they could start to deploy (see 2112140070), action appears imminent. The FCC has drafted a waiver order, but it’s still at the NTIA for review, officials confirmed. Industry is also still waiting for final rules for the 5.9 GHz band.
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: