The antidumping and countervailing duties that importer Fedmet Resources now has to pay as a result of a CBP duty evasion ruling amounts to an "embargo" and deprives Fedmet of market access, the importer argued in a Nov. 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, CBP violated Fedmet's due process rights by not even notifying the importer of the existence of the investigation until the interim measures were put in place and not giving it an opportunity to respond to evidence against it, the brief said (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Court of International Trade illegally substituted its judgment for the Commerce Department's when it found that the application of total adverse facts available was not backed by substantial evidence, antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant ABB Enterprise Software argued in its Nov. 22 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error backed disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

Plaintiff and antidumping duty respondent GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company will appeal a September Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's calculation of the separate rate in an antidumping duty administrative review by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews, according to a Nov. 23 notice of appeal. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The September decision came in a case involving the 2015-2016 review of the AD duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam in which the court originally rejected Commerce's separate rate calculation (see 2109270035). The court then upheld this calculation after the agency based the rate on more contemporaneous data (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00063).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered a hearing to be held Jan. 27 over a motion from gun manufacturers to dismiss a case brought by the Mexican government over their alleged illegal gun selling practices. Mexico brought the case against the American gun manufacturers and distributors for marketing and selling their guns in a way that arms the drug cartels in Mexico, including the use of corrupt gun dealers and the trafficking of weapons across the U.S.-Mexico border (see 2108050037). The defendants argue that, among other things, the Mexican government lacks standing to sue them in a U.S. federal court (see 2111230047). In a Nov. 24 order, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor ordered the Mexican government to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by Dec. 23 (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

The Court of International Trade issued its final judgment in the Transpacific Steel case that held that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day time frame for action set out in the statute (see 2107130059). After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned CIT's original decision finding such action illegal, the trade court reversed its decision concurrent with the appellate court's mandate, in a Nov. 22 judgment. Plaintiffs in the case recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2111150061) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's reversion to its initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in an antidumping duty investigation, both the plaintiff, Borusan Mannemsann, and the antidumping petitioners said. However, the sides were divided over what to do about Commerce's failure to address Borusan's date of sale, with Borusan simply calling for CIT to sustain the results and the petitioners calling for another remand to address the sale date issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade permitted a group of U.S. agricultural trade associations to file an amicus brief in a case over the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. After facing pushback from the U.S. and the petitioners, J.R. Simplot Company and The Mosaic Company, Judge Stephen Vaden said the amici "represent the actual users of that fertilizer, the farmers, i.e., those who ultimately pay the price of the tariffs imposed" (OCP S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00219)