Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.
Jacob Kopnick
Jacob Kopnick, Associate Editor, is a reporter for Trade Law Daily and its sister publications Export Compliance Daily and International Trade Today. He joined the Warren Communications News team in early 2021 covering a wide range of topics including trade-related court cases and export issues in Europe and Asia. Jacob's background is in trade policy, having spent time with both CSIS and USTR researching international trade and its complexities. Jacob is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Public Policy.
The U.S. will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding that importer Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. didn't need a protest to file suit at the trade court for its entries that were erroneously deemed liquidated while liquidation was suspended (see 2401250039). The court said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The government on July 1 said it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00244).
Kazakhstan formally accepted the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies July 1, bringing to 78 the number of countries that have accepted the deal. The WTO requires 32 more to reach the two-thirds threshold needed for the agreement to be able to enter into force.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
World Trade Organization members attending the June 25-28 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Committee meeting discussed 21 proposals for the sixth review of the operation and implementation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of SPM. The proposal covered topics such as "addressing modern challenges and emerging risks, voluntary third-party assurance programmes, regionalization, technology, transparency, and maximum residue levels," the WTO said.
Exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr's sales expenses in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand (see 2405020029). The court said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive. The exporter said on July 1 that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 22-00107).
Tire importer ZC Rubber America told the Court of International Trade on July 2 that the government and petitioner Accuride Corp. failed to defend the Commerce Department's "substantial transformation" analysis regarding steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00143).
The U.S. on July 1 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's suit contesting CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. The government said Seko's claims aren't ripe for judicial review, are moot and are premature (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).
Importer Nutricia North America filed an amended opening brief in a customs case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on its substances used to "treat life-treatening diseases in young children," after government attorneys asked for the revisions. The brief was amended in two spots (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
Importer Atlas Power opposed the government's motion to withdraw one of its admissions of fact in a customs case on the assessment of Section 301 tariffs on graphics processing units. The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to withdraw its admission that the subject merchandise is made "of parts of or accessories to ADP machines classified under subheading 8473.30.1180 of the HTSUS." Atlas said that its goods entered under subheading 8473.30.1180 and CBP didn't "object to the classification during the administrative proceedings leading to this litigation" (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).