Jacob Kopnick

Importer Amsted Rail Co. argued at the Court of International Trade that the International Trade Commission failed to reconcile its "contradictory conclusions" on the same evidence in finding that the domestic industry was harmed by imports of freight rail couplers. Filing a motion for judgment on Sept. 6, ARC said that didn't account for a key finding in a previous investigation on the freight rail couplers, which said that the domestic industry's health is "disproportionately" tied to demand for the couplers in the original equipment manufacturer market segment (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 struck a brief from U.S. Steel after the company attempted to submit supplemental arguments in a case on Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said that because he rejected the company's bid to join the action, it's not a party to the case and can't file briefs (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The U.S. on Sept. 5 unsealed an indictment against Sam Bhambhani, a North Attleboro, Massachusetts, resident and salesman for an unnamed laser source supplier, for allegedly conspiring to violate U.S. export controls and smuggling goods from the U.S. by sending laser welding machines to Russia. Also named in the indictment was Maxim Teslenko, a Russian citizen, who "acted as a reseller of laser equipment to the Russian government."

Importer Performance Additives filed its opening brief on Sept. 9 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, claiming that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that various of the company's duty drawback claims weren't "deemed liquidated." The company argued that the trade court imposed conditions on the deemed liquidation rule of 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(a)(2)(A) that don't exist in the statute and imposed the rules of Section 1504(a)(2)(B) despite this law not applying to the company's entries at issue (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).

Exporters CS Wind Malaysia and CS Wind Korea filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 6 challenging the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from Malaysia. The companies, collectively referred to as CS Wind, challenged Commerce's alleged failure to apply a cost adjustment to CS Wind's cost of manufacturing and decision to calculate the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios based on an average of two surrogate Malaysian companies (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).

The U.S. will pay conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society $375,000 in attorney's fees related to their case on an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).

The U.S. and importer Greenlight Organic, along with its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh, filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in the government's customs fraud suit against Greenlight and its owner. The dismissal comes after the parties filed a joint status report noting that a settlement was reached in the case (see 2408260014) (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

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

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 rejected importer Katana Racing's renewed motion to dismiss the govenrment's action against it seeking over $5.7 million in unpaid duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's previous dismissal of the case. In her first opinion since being confirmed to the court, Judge Lisa Wang said the U.S. didn't fail to properly identify the "person" liable for the violation, exhaust administrative remedies or bring the case on time (U.S. v. Katana Racing, CIT # 19-00125).

Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding it didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. The trade court said IRAdvocates failed to show that the agency's inaction harmed a "core business or diminished any asset" -- a standard estsablished by the Supreme Court (see 2408080049). Counsel for IRAdvocates said if its claim for standing fails on appeal, it's prepared to refile the case using a party that could hurdle the trade court's understanding of standing, such as a child laborer in West Africa or a U.S. chocolate company that competes with imports made using child labor (see 2408160009) (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).