DOJ has increasingly relied on an undervaluation theory for trade enforcement cases brought under the False Claims Act in its increased attempt to police trade fraud and may be looking to include "corporate integrity agreements" as part of trade-related FCA settlements, attorneys at Faegre Drinker said during a Nov. 13 webinar that focused on increased trade enforcement.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Petitioner Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).
Eight more cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following oral argument at the Supreme Court in the lead cases on the issue, during which many of the justices expressed skepticism over the validity of such tariffs.
The Commerce Department erred in picking Germany as the comparison market for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands, petitioner Giorgio Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Giorgio contested the four bases on which Commerce made its decision to use Germany as the comparison market, arguing that each isn't backed by substantial evidence (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).
The Commerce Department "exceeded its legal authority" in an anti-circumvention case "by imposing a blanket origin finding" on aluminum wire and cable exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable when it barred the company from taking part in the agency's program for certifying that an exporter's inputs weren't of Chinese origin, Tanghenam argued in a Nov. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted amendments to seven of its practice rules and three of its practice notes following a comment period (see 2509180010). The changes, which affect Rules 15, 25, 30, 32, 39, 46 and 47, will take effect on Dec. 1.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A group of seven importers, led by Innovative Eyewear, is the filer of another lawsuit challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on the issue in which many of the justices appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. The lawsuit is the fourth of its kind to be filed at the Court of International Trade in the wake of the oral argument as importers go to court to ensure they have access to refunds should the high court strike down President Donald Trump's reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs (see 2511060015) (Innovative Eyewear v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00247).