Jacob Kopnick

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

The U.S. government laid out two changes it made to the repository for entries subject to Section 301 duties in response to the plaintiffs' concerns, in an Aug. 9 joint status report filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the court's order of a preliminary injunction against liquidation of entries with Section 301 exposure pending resolution of litigation (see 2107060077), much haggling has been done between the parties over the terms of the injunction, prompting continued changes from the U.S. (see 2108020029).

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

The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty investigation did not comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion, plaintiff Nucor Corporation said in Aug. 6 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The remand results "articulate but don't properly apply a standard that would comply with the statutory adequate remuneration standard," Nucor said, opposing Commerce's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel via cheap electricity (POSCO v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

The Commerce Department must further explain its departure from the expected method in calculating the non-individually examined respondents rate in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade said in an July 30 opinion made public on Aug. 6. Chief Judge Mark Barnett, issuing his third opinion in the case, partially remanded the case yet again, but did sustain Commerce's corroboration of the petition rate for mandatory respondent Unicatch based on individual transactions.

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion for remand in an antidumping case since it is unclear whether the court has the authority, plaintiff Pirelli Tyre Co. said in an Aug. 9 brief. Since the proposed reasoning for the voluntary remand revolves around the conduct of a company not party to the case, the court may not have the legal authority to issue such a remand, Pirelli said. Even with such authority, the remand should not be permitted since it is not necessary to achieve the U.S.'s objective and would harm Pirelli's interests, the plaintiff said (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want proceedings in their Court of International Trade case stayed until another lawsuit, also filed by Garg Tube Export, is resolved, the plaintiffs said in an Aug. 5 motion. Since both cases concern the Commerce Department's finding of a particular market situation in India for the sale of welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes, the similarity of the legal issues prompts a stay order, the plaintiffs said. Garg requested the stay in a case over the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India until the appeal is resolved for its case over the 2017-18 administrative review for the same goods. Doing so would "promote judicial efficiency," the exporter said (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion protest brought by All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, since the court lacks jurisdiction over the entries, the U.S. defense said on Aug. 2 in a partial motion to dismiss. Since Dr. Bronner's xanthan gum entries have already liquidated and the importer failed to make a timely appeal of its protest of the liquidation, the court has no jurisdiction over the entries, the Department of Justice said (All One God Faith, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

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

Two Court of International Trade cases from Optima Steel International should not be consolidated since they fall under different "jurisdictional provisions and standards of review," the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 5 brief. While one case challenges CBP's assessment of antidumping duties and thus falls under Section 1581(a), the other goes after the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions and therefore is under Section 1581(i). "In Court No. 21-00062, the question before the Court is whether CBP, in its ministerial role, properly assessed antidumping duties to the entries at issue pursuant to Commerce’s liquidation instructions," DOJ said. "Court No. 21-00327, however, involves the question of whether Commerce’s liquidation instructions were proper based upon the record before Commerce. Thus, the distinct operative facts and legal issues in the two actions weigh against consolidation" (Optima Steel International, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00062) (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).