Importer Says Annual and Parental Leave No Excuse for DOJ Filing Extension
Seneca Foods Corporation May 13 opposed a motion by DOJ for an extension of time to file a reply to its comments on remand, saying the department had failed to show good cause (Seneca Foods Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
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.
The tin mill product importer said it had previously agreed to a 45-day extension for Commerce to file the results of the remand (see 2404020047), but had said at the time it would not consent to any further delays.
DOJ is seeking the extension because its lead counsel on the case is on parental leave and the attorney responsible for replying to Seneca’s comments is on a “prescheduled annual leave” from May 17 through 28, the importer said. It said these absences were foreseeable, so the department could have either planned around it or “avoided the repeated prior delays that created this scheduling conflict.”
“This case is exceedingly straightforward, such that additional time for comments should not be required,” Seneca said.
It asked the court to deny DOJ’s motion and require that its reply be filed by May 30, as originally scheduled.