Importer Southern Cross Seafood failed to rebut the government's showing that the National Marine Fisheries Service's denial of the company's preapproval application seeking to import Chilean sea bass does not amount to an embargo, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if this denial were an embargo, Southern Cross has further failed to show that jurisdiction does not exclusively lie in the relevant district court and not at the trade court, the U.S. said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed U.S. Steel Corp.'s appeal of its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denial. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), in which the appellate court said that a group of domestic steel companies do not have standing to intervene in these types of actions, the case should be dismissed (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).

Importer Wanxiang America asked the Court of International Trade for an extra 3,000 words for its reply to the U.S.'s opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. In a Jan. 27 motion seeking a total of 10,000 words for its reply brief, Wanxiang America said that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs." The U.S. opposes the motion (U.S. v. Wanxiang America Corporation, CIT # 22-00205).

While the Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions to reconsider the application of a Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) to a Mexican labor rate, the agency still used "unsupported and arbitrary justifications" to back its refusal to use Brazilian labor data in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff American Keg Co. argued. Filing comments on Commerce's remand results on Jan. 26 at the trade court, the plaintiff claimed that Commerce abused its discretion by using Mexican International Labour Organization (ILO) data that appears to not have been available at the time of the investigation (New American Keg v. United States, CIT # 20-00008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed an appeal led by Ellwood City Forge on the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping duty investigation. The appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the action before filing their opening brief at the appellate court. Counsel for Ellwood did not reply to request for comment on the reason for dismissing the case (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1382).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 26 order gave defendant-appellee Mid Continent Steel & Wire until Feb. 22 to file a reply brief over the use of total adverse facts available rates for two non-cooperative respondents. The appellee said it needed the extra time due to "a significant volume of time-sensitive work arising from other cases being handled by" Mid Continent's counsel (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 order dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Echjay Forgings after the company moved to toss the action. The case concerned the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. Echjay had argued that the Commerce Department erred by not including the company in the all-others rate (see 2207080064). Echjay is also making identical challenges at CIT over the first administrative review of the order and at Commerce over the third administrative review (Echjay Forgings v. United States, CIT #22-00172).

Industrial shredders should be classified as "Other machines and mechanical appliances... other," dutiable at 2.5% rather than as duty-free machines for "mixing, kneading, crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring,” argued the DOJ in a Jan. 25 cross-motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).

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