Importer Opposes Government Request for Extension of Discovery Deadline
Importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing opposed Jan. 8 the United States’ request for an extension of time in its steel tube classification case, saying it hadn’t been consulted and would be prejudiced by the delay (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00130).
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 importer said that, first, government counsel had emailed it on Jan. 7, but hadn’t consulted with it at all in advance.
Further, the government was only seeking an extension because “the lawyers assigned to this case have other work,” which wasn’t enough to show good cause, it said.
The delay would prejudice it because it filed a discovery motion asking the Court of International Trade to find that its two separate deposition notices -- one directed at CBP and one at the Bureau of Industry and Security -- were proper under CIT Rule 30(b)(6), despite the government’s objection. An extension would slow the trade court’s ruling on that motion, it said.