The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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.
The Court of International Trade should give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration a voluntary remand in a case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand caught using techniques that allegedly have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 8 motion. The voluntary remand would let the NOAA "amend the current comparability findings for certain New Zealand fisheries whose expiration dates conform with the deadlines set forth for other comparability findings to be issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)," the government said (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The rehearing motion from plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, "appears to be little more than an impermissible attempt to relitigate an argument" already dispatched by the Court of International Trade, Judge Stephen Vaden held in a Nov. 8 opinion. Ellwood City sought reconsideration of the court's order tossing the challenge to the Commerce Department's failure to conduct on-site verification during an antidumping review, given that the plaintiffs failed to broach the topic administratively. Vaden said that Ellwood City misunderstood "the nexus between futility" and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
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.
CBP did not do what it told the Court of International Trade it was going to do on remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case, plaintiffs Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in Nov. 4 comments on CBP's remand. The agency told the court it would consider the Commerce Department's scope ruling, which found that Ikadan and Gaosai's imports are within the scope of the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty orders, and clarify its decision to ensure the court is given a thorough analysis of the relevant law and evidence. Instead, CBP failed to address any of the plaintiffs' arguments on remand, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed four tariff classification cases brought by importer Continental Automotive Systems, in a Nov. 3 order. The actions concerned the classification of nitrous oxide sensors or exhaust sensors. CBP classified the merchandise under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9027.10.20 (1.2% in 2016, 0.8% in 2017). Continental said it instead should have been classified under subheading 9026.80.20, free of duty. Continental filed the stipulation of dismissal without explanation as to why the cases were tossed (Continental Automotive Systems v. United States, CIT #s 17-00106, 17-00263, 18-00096, 18-00237).
Antidumping duty petitioners' "notice of supplemental authority" in a case over whether Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel violated ethical rules in an injury proceeding is neither supplemental nor an authority, plaintiffs in the matter, led by ARC, argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief. The supplemental authority, which included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch and accused the plaintiffs of abusing the litigation system, could have been filed "contemporaneous with the [petitioner's] motion to vacate the temporary restraining order," and it is not an authority since "it is not a statute, regulation, or decisional law," the motion said (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).
Selective Cushioning Units (SCUs) are products of Mexico due to their complex assembly, not products of China subject to Section 301 duties, Strato argued in a Nov. 3 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Strato, Inc., v. U.S., CIT #22-00315).