Jacob Kopnick

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. argued that mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is improper on the question of whether the government properly served exporter Koehler Paper through its U.S. counsel. Responding on Nov. 6 to Koehler's petition for writ of mandamus, the U.S. said mandamus relief isn't "clear and indisputable" and that an appeal from a final order from the Court of International Trade "should not be inadequate" (In re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

Importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel argued that the continued application of an injunction on the liquidation of its "Method B" wheel entries is "inequitable," since the plain reading of the injunction shows that the Method B wheels never have been enjoined. Responding to opposition from AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development Inc. to Lionshead's bid to amend the PI at the Court of International Trade, Lionshead added that the amendment wouldn't reverse a CBP decision, as Dexstar claims (Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

China formally filed a dispute at the World Trade Organization on Nov. 6 challenging the EU's definitive countervailing duties on new battery electric vehicles from China. The request for consultations continues a dispute China started on the EU's provisional CV duties on Chinese EVs (see 2408140010).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 granted the government's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The U.S. asked for the remand to consider the impact of recent CIT cases Global Aluminum Distributor v. U.S. and H&E Home v. U.S. in which CBP reversed its findings of AD/CVD evasion on Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio (see 2209080013) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00072).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned claims from both exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. and the Commerce Department during Nov. 5 oral argument in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology and the U.S. agreed to file new motions for summary judgment in the company's lawsuit against its designation as a Chinese military company after the Pentagon relisted the firm (see 2410230018). Filing a joint status report on Nov. 5 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the parties agreed that their pending cross-motions for judgment are moot and that renewed cross-motions for summary judgment are needed. The parties submitted a proposed schedule that would run from Nov. 8 to mid-February 2025 (Hesai Technology Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

Exporter POSCO argued on Nov. 5 that the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below costs is de facto specific is unsupported by substantial evidence. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, POSCO said Commerce's specificity finding "relies on a random grouping of the steel industry with two other unrelated industries" to find that the steel industry gets a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade rejected importer Retractable Technologies' bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction stopping the collection of Section 301 duties on its needles and syringes. However, in a decision made public Nov. 4, Judge Claire Kelly did stop liquidation of Retractable's entries during the course of the company's suit, which challenges the legality of a Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes.