Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), was denied a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an Oct. 6 order. Since CJE "cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief," the move for a PI was denied. CJE failed to show that Commerce acted ultra vires and in excess of its authority, Judge Reggie Walton said (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-01798).
The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Judge Gary Katzmann ruled in an Oct. 7 order. Instead, jurisdiction in these instances lies exclusively with federal district courts, the judge said. Since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, and thus precludes any protestable event, jurisdiction at CIT is barred for seized goods, the court found.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A host of mattress companies in two Court of International Trade cases cited an Oct. 4 order from Judge Timothy Stanceu in their bid for an open-ended preliminary injunction against the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. The order said that the open-ended injunction was warranted since the plaintiff in that case showed a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued in that way (see 2108230059). The U.S. had opposed the open-ended injunction, instead pushing for the injunction to merely run until the end of the first administrative review. The U.S. echoed this opposition in the two cases over the AD mattress order, arguing that if needed the injunction could be extended beyond the end of the first administrative review.
In a complaint at the Court of International Trade, importer Kehoe Component Sales said its heating blanket controllers should be classified under subheading 9032.89.60, dutiable at 1.7%. CBP liquidated the entries under subheading 8537.10.9070, dutiable at 2.7%.
There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.
Lawyers for LG Electronics' bid to overturn the International Trade Commission's restrictions on their participation in a solar safeguard review should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the ITC argued in an Oct. 4 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Even if CIT had jurisdiction, the case is premature since there has been no "justiciable final agency action," the brief said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Trade Court Backs ITC's No Domestic Industry Injury Finding From Fabricated Structural Steel Imports
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel (FSS) from Canada, Chile and Mexico did not harm the domestic industry, in a Sept. 22 opinion made public on Oct. 5.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel (AGIS) circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from China via the United Arab Emirates, in a Sept. 24 ruling made public on Oct. 4.