The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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 following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Three motions for judgment were filed at the Court of International Trade June 5 challenging the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia (Archer Daniels Midland Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00239).
The Biden administration's proposed Section 301 tariff hikes on various Chinese goods (see 2405220072) would continue to skirt World Trade Organization commitments and strip the global economy of international tribunals, which are key to curbing "persistent protectionism," said George Washington Law School professor Steve Charnovitz in comments on the proposed tariffs.
Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).
Exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. told the Court of International Trade in a June 6 complaint that the Commerce Department abused its discretion when it rejected the company's separate rate certification as untimely in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).
The Court of International Trade on June 5 amended a decision it issued last week rejecting the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against an exporter doing business as Supermel in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil (see 2405310043) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).
Antidumping duty respondent Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief last week that the U.S. and petitioners Nucor Corp. and SSAB Enterprises failed to adequately defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).
The Court of International Trade on June 5 sustained some and remanded some of the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks in the 16th review of the antidumping duty order on Vietnamese catfish, covering entries in 2018 to 2019.
The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).