Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled Oct. 4 that the government hadn’t sufficiently responded to discovery requests by pistolmaker Glock, overruling a number of DOJ's objections and criticizing it for missing its interrogatory responses deadline.
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
The U.S. and importer Roper Corp. settled a customs spat on the company's microwave ovens, with CBP agreeing to liquidate the goods without Section 301 duties (Roper Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00217).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 4 remanded the Commerce Department's decision to include certain products from exporter Tecnicas de Fluidos (TEFLU) within the scope of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico in the 2020-21 review of the order. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce must answer whether TEFLU's "further manufactured products" are "downstream products" outside the order's scope. The agency must lay out "the degree to which" the exporter's goods were processed by various methods and whether each good was further processed, instead of basing its determination "solely on the physical and chemical composition" of the products. Choe-Groves added that Commerce must assess whether TEFLU's goods are within an industry investigated by the International Trade Commission in its corresponding injury analysis.
Importers led by Tenaris Bay City sent comments to the Court of International Trade last week opposing the International Trade Commission's separate decisions to cumulate both Russian and South Korean oil country tubular goods with goods from Argentina and Mexico. Tenaris Bay argued that the ITC improperly interpreted the statute in defining the phrase "compete with," which "uses the present tense and thus denotes" that the goods in question must compete with the like product during the "months leading up to and including vote day" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344).
Parties in a lawsuit may compel opposing parties to produce publicly available information during discovery, the Court of International Trade ruled Oct. 4. In the ruling, which partly granted and partly denied pistol maker Glock’s motion to compel responses to its discovery request, Judge Jenifer Choe-Groves also criticized the government’s late responses, which she said suggested "carelessness and a lack of appropriate due diligence.” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).
The United States said Sept. 30 that an Indian aluminum exporter was trying to “artificially separate two similar industries” in its attempt to avoid being assessed a countervailing duty for the provision of coal for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260).
There have been no lawsuits recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 2 sustained the Commerce Department's scope ruling made on remand excluding engines with horizontal crankshafts from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 2 rejected exporter Chandan Steel Limited's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous decision sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India.
After oral argument, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to supplement its motion to dismiss in a case involving seized weight loss dietary supplements, saying that it had found emails from CBP “responsive to the Court’s questions" (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).