The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear Amsted Rail Co.'s (ARC's) claims against the International Trade Commission's decision to grant the company's former counsel access to its business proprietary information, ARC and a group of other plaintiffs argued in an Oct. 26 reply brief. The ITC argued in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not giving the commission time to consider the claims and that the commission had not taken final agency action. The plaintiffs replied that since the ITC has now decided to give ARC's former counsel and his new firm -- Daniel Pickard and Buchanan Ingersoll, respectively -- access to its BPI that final agency action has been taken and administrative remedies have been exhausted (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube fails to distinguish its case from the key Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. matter in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe argued in an Oct. 24 reply brief. Urging the Federal Circuit to issue summary affirmance in its case, Saha Thai said the issue "is cut and dry." That the government is no longer defending its position in this case demonstrates how tenuous Wheatland's argument is and the petitioner is pushing a legal theory that Commerce "has abandoned," the appellee said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-11175).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade is set to have an in-person oral argument on Oct. 26 about the U.S.'s submission of a "consent" motion for leave to add a document to the administrative record but which actually did not have the consent of the plaintiffs, led by Grupo Simec. Judge Stephen Vaden will preside over the hearing to determine whether consent was given to the motion by the plaintiffs (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).
The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation affected inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea in remand results submitted on Oct. 24 to the Court of International Trade. Submitting the remand redetermination after a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, Commerce did say that it still believes imports of low-priced Chinese steel could contribute to the existence of a PMS and that, based on the Federal Circuit's ruling, it could in the future defend a PMS finding solely on this ground. The result of the remand left the dumping margins unchanged (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT #18-00083).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.
The Commerce Department reasonably found that countervailing duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition's allegations that CVD respondent CS Wind Vietnam could potentially manipulate its CVD margin are unsupported, the U.S. argued in Oct. 21 comments on remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Aside from addressing WTTC's four alleged factors showing potential manipulation individually, the U.S. said that, when taken collectively, the factors still fail to show a potential for manipulation of the margin via CS Wind Vietnam's relationship with its Korean parent company (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT #20-03692).