The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that a group of Chinese banks are not in contempt for failing to enforce a series of orders barring transferring, withdrawing or disposing of funds into the accounts of entities guilty of trademark infringement in an Aug. 30 order. Until the contempt motion, the plaintiff, investment firm Next Investments, never sought to enforce the orders against the banks in question, precluding them from now succeeding, in part, on a contempt motion, the appellate court held.
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to collapse two mandatory respondents and one of their affiliates in an antidumping duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) products from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade ruled on Sept. 1, seeking to bring Commerce's results in line with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mandate. Judge Timothy Stanceu also ordered Commerce to use facts otherwise available with an adverse inference on one of the respondent's reporting of yield strength in the investigation.
Chinese wood cabinet and vanities exporter Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. moved, unopposed, for a preliminary injunction against liquidation of its entries in a countervailing duty challenge at the Court of International Trade, in a Sept. 1 filing. That's despite the fact that the challenge is of the underlying countervailing duty investigation on the wood cabinet and vanities from China, and liquidation of the entries is suspended until the conclusion of the first administrative review (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #20-00110).
The Court of International Trade should not stay judgment of its decision rejecting Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum "derivatives" since plaintiffs in a separate but relevant case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have a "significant probability" to succeed, a motion opposing the stay said. Plaintiffs Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products filed their opposition on Aug. 30 after the Justice Department sought the stay once the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S. case, permitting the president to take Section 232 tariff actions beyond procedural deadlines (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).
The Commerce Department properly rejected data corrections submitted by exporter Goodluck India in an antidumping duty investigation on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 31 opinion, reversing the Court of International Trade's decision. The corrections were not “minor,” meaning that Commerce was justified when it originally rejected the revisions and hit Goodluck with an adverse facts available AD duty rate, a three-judge panel at the appellate court said.
The case against United States Steel Corporation alleging that the Pittsburgh-based company misled the Commerce Department when it objected to Russian importer NLMK's Section 232 exclusion argues an unrecognized category of "unfair competition," U.S. Steel said in an Aug. 30 motion to toss the case. In a brief filed in the lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Steel said that it is immune to any liability stemming from its petitioning of the government and that NLMK's suit is barred by federal law (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation, W.D. Pa. #21-00273).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Aberrational Malaysian surrogate data is not enough to discard its use in favor of Romanian data in an antidumping duty administrative review, the Commerce Department said in an Aug. 30 reply brief. Responding to comments from the plaintiffs in the case over Commerce's remand, the agency also held that the determination should be upheld since the plaintiffs provided no evidence beyond the aberrancy of parts of the Malaysian data (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00007).
An extension of the time of service in a penalty action against the owner and director of importer Atria, Kevin Ho, should not be granted, counsel for Ho argued in an Aug. 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, also pushing for the case to be dismissed. The U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint and cannot prove excusable neglect in its service, Ho argued (United States v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: