The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. must pay more than $100,000 in unpaid duties on an entry of honey from China imported in 2002, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The suit, filed under Section 1582, echoes another case brought against Aegis that looks to collect duties on entries of garlic that liquidated in 2006 (see 2211010037). The surety in that case has argued that the statute of limitations has passed for the action, claiming that the U.S. has a six-year window to file such action that runs from the date of liquidation. The U.S. says that this window starts from when CBP makes a demand for payment (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping duty respondents' costs of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 23 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "in an analogous case, Hyundai Steel Co., made it illegal for Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when finding normal value based on home market sales, supporting the agency's removal of the adjustment in the present case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellee Hitachi Energy USA's motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty case. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
All World Trade Organization members should join the negotiations over an Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement, Columbia University's Karl Sauvant said in a Nov. 21 submission on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Sauvant laid out three reasons completing and adopting this agreement is important.
Fish importer Southern Cross Seafoods on Nov. 21 moved for an expedited briefing schedule and consideration of its case at the Court of International Trade concerning its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass. Southern Cross said that failure to expedite the case would deprive the importer of all its U.S. sales in the coming year as it is unable to import and sell Chilean sea bass until the embargo on its imports is lifted. Further, the fish imports are perishable goods, so Southern Cross said it needs a decision by March 2023 to have any meaningful relief (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade, led by Amsted Rail Co., amended their complaint after a similar case of theirs against the International Trade Commission was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint added a specific alleged instance in which ARC gave its former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now of Buchanan Ingersoll, information that is now being used against it in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
CBP in a Nov. 21 remand submission to the Court of International Trade continued to find that MSeafood Corporation did not evade antidumping duties by transshipping Indian shrimp through Vietnam. The agency said it believes it complied with the trade court's remand order by having CBP's Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate transmit all documents that were "inadvertently omitted" from the record to the agency's Office of Regulations and Rulings, and placing a revised public version of business confidential information (BC) on the record (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 18 gave the U.S. more time to file a petition for rehearing in an antidumping duty case. In the case, the Federal Circuit found that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review (see 2208290026). The court ruled that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language. The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate. The U.S. was previously given 60 more days to file the rehearing motion, and now has another 30, giving it until Jan. 11, 2023, to file a petition for rehearing (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).
The Commerce Department did not "sufficiently" identify withheld information to justify of its use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff Kumar Industries argued in a Nov. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to identify "a single document that was actually missing" to justify the use of AFA and also chose not to verify the information submitted by Kumar despite ample opportunity to do so, the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).