The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 19-25:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).
The National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing to expand its Seafood Import Monitoring Program requirements to cover additional species, as well as amend the SIMP regulations to clarify the responsibilities of the importer of record, it said in a notice released Dec. 27. Comments on the proposal are due March 28.
Many eyes were trained Thursday on U.S. District Court for Delaware for Chief Judge Colm Connolly’s reaction to Nimitz Technologies’ latest refusal to produce bank records, emails and other materials responsive to his Nov. 10 order for documents that would identify third-party funding of four Nimitz patent lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning.
Cannabis and cannabis accessory importers now have a "strong legal argument with potentially broad applications to challenge CBP's seizures" of marijuana paraphernalia in light of two recent Court of International Trade decisions, Harris Bricken lawyer Adams Lee said in a Dec. 16 blog post. Both cases involved the question of whether an importer could enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, given that marijuana was made legal at the state level but remained illegal federally. Lee said that given how the opinions were structured, a state law repealing a past prohibition on such products "could be enough of an 'authorization' by the state law to block the federal prohibition on importing drug paraphernalia."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department on Dec. 19 filed a pair of remand redeterminations at the Court of International Trade that exclude ductile iron flanges imported by MCC Holdings, doing business as Crane Resistoflex, and Star Pipe Products from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. The trade court previously said the remand results were not issued in a form that the court could sustain. On remand, the agency clarified that it doesn't intend to issue a scope ruling after the court's review of the case, declaring that if the court affirms the remand, a Federal Register notice will be released stating that Crane's and Star Pipe's flanges are outside the scope of the order (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT # 18-00248) (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT # 17-00236).
Cannabis and cannabis accessory importers now have a "strong legal argument with potentially broad applications to challenge CBP's seizures" of marijuana paraphernalia in light of two recent Court of International Trade decisions, Harris Bricken lawyer Adams Lee said in a Dec. 16 blog post. Both cases involved the question of whether an importer could enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, given that marijuana was made legal at the state level but remained illegal federally. Lee said that given how the opinions were structured, a state law repealing a past prohibition on such products "could be enough of an 'authorization' by the state law to block the federal prohibition on importing drug paraphernalia."