Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
After its bid for a preliminary injunction was denied by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2407260045), a customs broker fought Aug. 5 against a motion to dismiss its case, saying its complaint was ripe for litigation because CBP had already made the decision to deny its reinstatement to the agency's Entry Type 86 pilot (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).
The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade revised the duty drawback adjustment for exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, resulting in a de minimis antidumping duty rate for the company in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).
The Court of International Trade denied Seko Customs Brokerage's bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 Test and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs. Judge Claire Kelly found Seko already received all the relief it sought when it was conditionally reinstated into the programs and told why it was originally suspended.
The Court of International Trade in a July 15 decision made public July 26 denied customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Judge Claire Kelly said Seko's claims are "either moot or speculative" because it has been "conditionally reinstated" into the programs and has received a "detailed explanation" of its violation of the programs. The judge added that Seko's evidence refers to "speculative harm at best," and that harm to its reputation as a result of the suspensions isn't enough to warrant injunctive relief.
Industry players and a law professor argued that the International Trade Commission's power to stop imports that are found to be infringing on domestic patents has become a form of blackmail by foreign companies against domestic companies, and that its original reason for being is no longer true.
Minsu Fang, a Chinese national, was indicted for allegedly conspiring to import what the U.S. government believes to be "the largest amount of fentanyl precursors found in the Southern District of Texas and one of the largest in the country," DOJ announced July 22.
In a heavily redacted public brief, a mattress petitioner pushed back on several complex conclusions reached by the Commerce Department on remand regarding an antidumping duty order review on mattresses from Indonesia (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 21-00277).
Ildico, importer of luxury Richard Mille watches, told the Court of International Trade that the U.S. is seeking to "distract from the legal issue" in the case by claiming that Ildico allegedly can't prove the characteristics of the watches (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).
The Court of International Trade properly rejected the Commerce Department's decision to set the separate rate respondents' antidumping duty margin by averaging a zero percent rate and an adverse facts available rate, exporter Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief July 17, the exporter said Commerce failed to support its use of the averaged rates and that the agency ultimately arrived at the correct determination: a zero percent margin for the separate rate companies (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).