U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The Commerce Department admitted that it was "improper" to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) data in an antidumping duty investigation. Submitting its remand results on Nov. 14 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reopened the record and added Mexican wage rate data. The agency also found on remand that exporter Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. met the burden for achieving separate rate status. The result of the remand is a zero percent dumping margin for respondents Ningbo Master International Trade Co., Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. and now Ulix (New American Keg v. United States, CIT #20-00008).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP issued an internal guidance Nov. 7 on verifying bond amounts for Temporary Importation Under Bond (TIB) entries and requesting additional security under a Single Transaction Bond (STB) when a continuous bond is on file but is not sufficient to cover TIB requirements, the agency said in a Nov. 14 CSMS message.
Law firm Neville Peterson has replaced Clark Hill as counsel for importer Meyer Corp. in 10 cases at the Court of International Trade, according to a notice of substitution of attorney at the Court of International Trade. Meyer filed the case over the use of first sale treatment in which CIT questioned whether goods from non-market economies could qualify for first sale valuation. This ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that CBP had no basis to consider a country's non-market economy status when finding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). This case returned to the trade court, where it serves as a test case for many other proceedings brought by Meyer -- 10 of which Neville Peterson has taken over as counsel for Clark Hill (Meyer Corp. v. United States , CIT #14-00277, 15-00018, 15-00019, 15-00092, 15-00191, 15-00332, 16-00112, 16-00271, 17-00186, 20-03835).
The Court of International Trade does not have jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction -- to hear a case over whether former counsel for Amsted Rail Co. should be barred from certain antidumping and countervailing proceedings, the U.S. told the court. Concurrently filing an opposition to ARC's motion for a preliminary injunction, which would bar ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard and law firm Buchanan Ingersoll, from participating in the proceedings, and a motion to dismiss, the U.S. said that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in the matter (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
Dueling intervenor briefs from SoundExchange, Google and broadcast trade groups filed Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenged arguments in the combined appeals of the Copyright Royalty Board’s Web V ruling on royalty rates for webcast music.
The court should deny T-Mobile’s attempt to arbitrate legal claims stemming from the company shutting down its Sprint 5G network without properly alerting and compensating consumers, plaintiffs told the U.S. District Court for the Western Washington in a Nov. 3 filing (docket 2:22-cv-00843).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit at the Court of International Trade invoked three court decisions -- two from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- in a Nov. 9 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., said the cases were discussed during the hearing on the issue held at the trade court (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in a Nov. 7 dissenting opinion railed against the court system's use of Chevron deference in a case over veterans' disability benefits. Breaking from his colleagues' decision on the petition for writ of certiori, Gorsuch decried the use of Chevron deference as the "kind of judicial abdication" that "disserves both our veterans and the law."