Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, said the agency in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative often found itself weighing the possible harm to U.S. consumers from the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs against the need to give the duties enough teeth to curb China’s allegedly unfair trade practices, the agency said in its 90-page “remand determination,” filed Aug. 1 at the Court of International Trade (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052). Submitting its bid to ease the court's concerns over modifications made to the third and fourth tariff waves, USTR provided its justifications for removing various goods from the tariff lists ranging from critical minerals to seafood products.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:
In filings at the USMCA Secretariat, Mexico and Canada say the Uniform Regulations for USMCA are clear, and say that " roll-up applies to the calculation of [regional value content] RVC for a vehicle. It obliges Parties to take 'no account' of the non-originating materials contained in an originating good when that good is used in the subsequent production of another good."
DOJ asked the U.S. Court of International Trade, in a motion Monday on behalf of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, for permission to correct the administrative record in the Section 301 litigation to include 136 pages of documents not previously submitted in the cases. Virtually all the documents previously were in the public domain, and they include mostly news releases and Federal Register notices announcing USTR actions connected with the imposition of the four rounds of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports dating to 2018. USTR “was aware of the facts contained in all these documents, such that those facts were considered when making the challenged decisions” about imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs, said the agency: “Upon drafting the remand results as ordered by the Court, the USTR has determined that additional documents either were indirectly considered in the process of issuing the contested determinations, or they were issued in conjunction with the contested determinations, such that they should be part of the administrative record.” The remand results themselves, to address what the court in April found to be Administrative Procedure Act violations at USTR in the deficient way in which it imposed the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs, were due at the court by the close of business Aug. 1. The DOJ said it reached out Thursday to Matthew Nicely and Pratik Shah, lead Akin Gump attorneys for test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, to gauge their position on the motion. According to the DOJ, Nicely and Shah said they “take no position on the motion, on the understanding that the Government has forfeited reliance on documents not cited in its previous merits briefing to this Court.” Nicely didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).