The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Exporter Jin Tiong Materials Manufacturer was not required to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification to establish its eligibility for a separate rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiffs Jin Tiong and Repwire argued in a Nov. 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporters dubbed the issue "not complicated," arguing that while Jin Tiong did not submit a separate rate application, Section A of the standard questionnaire in non-market economy cases requests the same information. As a result, Commerce properly issued a questionnaire to Jin Tiong but illegally withdrew it before the exporter was able to submit its responses (Repwire v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00016).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 oral argument questioned importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, over its jurisdictional grounds to challenge a CBP decision, given that the company failed to file a protest. SIS argued that it didn't need to file a protest to challenge the liquidation of its entries, given that there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation. At oral argument, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes probed this position, with Hughes in particular expressing doubt over the claim, given the finality surrounding CBP's liquidation of imports (Acquisition 362 v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
Antidumping duty petitioners submitted various supplemental authorities in Amsted Rail Co.'s case over its former counsel's purported "betrayal" in using a former client's information against it in a later injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. The petitioners, collectively referred to as the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers, included a declaration from Georgetown University Law Center ethics professor Michael Frisch discussing whether ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now-partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, committed an ethics violation. Frisch said that the D.C. Bar Rule 1.9 concerning conflicts of interest does not apply to ARC since the only party affected by the injury proceeding is ASF-K de Mexico, a Mexican maquiladora factory affiliated with ARC that did not formerly employ Pickard, and that ARC's lawsuit is an "abuse of the litigation process" (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases in a series of orders on Nov. 1 and 2. One case, filed by Incase Design Group, concerned the classification of sports armband cell phone holders, with the plaintiff vying for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4202.99.90. No explanation was given for the dismissal. The second action, brought by Conrad Sales Group, concerned the classification of frozen tilapia filets, and was dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. The third case, brought by Tali Corp., concerned the classification of glassware and also was dropped due to a lack of prosecution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 2 order deactivated U.S. Steel Corp.'s recently filed appeal over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. U.S. Steel filed the appeal amid a spat over a motion from plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. to reconsider the court's opinion. Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), the time to file an appeal runs from the order disposing of the last remaining motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1109).
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.
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co. (ARC) and ASF-K Mexico again took to the Court of International Trade, this time against the Commerce Department, in a bid to get the trade court to disqualify its former law firm from further participation in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and Mexico. ARC and ASF-K said that Commerce's refusal to disqualify Buchanan Ingersoll and timely rescind access to business proprietary information (BPI) violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiff's right to due process (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 24-30: