The Commerce Department on Nov. 17 flipped its position on remand in a case on a new shipper review, finding that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't make a "bona fide sale" of subject merchandise during the review period (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 24-00126).
Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners opened a lawsuit last week against its former counsel, Perkins Coie, for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in its representation of the exporter in AD proceedings on steel nails from Oman. Filing suit in Washington state court, Oman Fasteners centered on two alleged mistakes made by the Perkins Coie attorneys: the failure to submit a fully translated surrogate financial statement in the AD investigation and to meet a filing deadline in the sixth review of the AD order, which led to a total adverse facts available AD rate.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 extended the deadline for interested parties to submit comments on proposed amendments to one of the court's practice rules. Comments that had been due by Nov. 24 now will be accepted through close of business on Dec. 5.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 issued its mandate in the massive litigation on the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. The importers who challenged the tariffs didn't file an appeal of the matter to the Supreme Court prior to the issuance of the mandate. Last month, the court upheld the tariffs, finding them to be a valid exercise of authority under Section 307(a)(1)(C) (see 2509250028). The court said the statute's permission to "modify" Section 301 action where it's "no longer appropriate," allows the U.S. trade representative to ramp up the tariffs if the original action is "insufficient" to achieve its "stated purpose" (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Commerce Department reasonably decided not to attribute subsidies provided to Nur Gemicilik, an affiliated input supplier of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir, to Kaptan itself in the 2018 CVD review on Turkish rebar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Nov. 17. Judges Raymond Chen, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce properly identified that the unprocessed steel scrap Nur provided Kaptan was a "common input" and that the agency didn't place undue weight on consideration of Nur's main business activity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" and not as "food preparations." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark overruled the Court of International Trade's decision, which came to the opposite conclusion, finding that Nutricia's products are properly found to be medicaments under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3004.50.5040.
President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted default judgment against importer Rago Tires for negligence in importing tires by not declaring the goods as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese truck and bus tires. Judge Joseph Laroski ordered Rago to pay a $14,108.87 penalty.