Importer Ditches Conflict-of-Interest Suit Against Commerce After Dismissing Related CAFC Case
Importer Amsted Rail Co. voluntarily dismissed its conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade. The case, involving the company's former counsel Daniel Pickard, now partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, was previously stayed pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission. Amsted earlier this month also dismissed the ITC matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the importer filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal (see 2307050052) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00316).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In the ITC case, the trade court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2211150033). CIT ruled in that opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction to consider the conflict-of-interest claims until the end of the injury proceeding, saying jurisdiction before the proceeding concludes under Section 1581(i) is unavailable. While the case at the Federal Circuit made the claims against ARC's former counsel as they relate to the injury proceeding, the present action concerned the conflict-of-interest arguments in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.