Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp. argued that it didn't need to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding its listing on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List before seeking judicial review because the case arises under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, exhaustion is required only when an agency rule requires appeal before review, Ninestar said (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The U.S. will make a statement in the dispute on the U.S. origin marking requirements for goods from Hong Kong during the World Trade Organization's Jan. 26 dispute settlement body meeting, the WTO said. A dispute panel ruled against the U.S. national security defense of its trade measure requiring goods from Hong Kong to be labeled as being made in China (see 2212220029).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).
Libertarian think tank Cato Institute asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for leave to file an amicus brief in support of a group of solar panel exporters' bid to have the court revisit its ruling sustaining President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 25 said importer Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. didn't need a protest to file suit at the trade court for its entries that were erroneously deemed liquidated while liquidation was suspended. Judge Timothy Reif said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires the that entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries.
Rimon Law added two partners and one associate to its international trade practice, the firm said. The new partners are James Min, former global chair of international trade law for the DHL Group and Mi-Yong Kim, former partner at LimNexus. The firm also added Chelsea Ellis, former LimNexus associate, as an associate. Rimon also announced the launch of its export controls and economic sanctions practice. Ellis, Kim and Min join partner Daanish Hamid in that practice. Sandra Bell, former deputy assistant commissioner at CBP's Office of International Trade, also recently joined the firm (see 2401120064).
Expect new EU action at the World Trade Organization in 2024, four Akin attorneys said in a Jan. 23 blog poost. With the exceptions of 2023 and 2007, the EU has filed at least one complaint every year since 1995, and is expected to "go back on the offensive" by starting at least one or two WTO spats this year, the attorneys said.
The following trade-related lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade asked parties in nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's circumvention investigation on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam for a briefing on whether a test case should be designated. In a Jan. 19 order, Judge M. Miller Baker bifurcated the motion for summary judgment procedure for a joint status report and proposed briefing schedule. All parties were asked to submit a joint status report no later than Feb. 9 to answer the question on consolidation (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00221, -00222, -00223, -00224, -00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229).
The U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).