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 Court of International Trade granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using certain supplemental discovery materials that were filed late -- a set of photographs and samples of crystals used in some of the watches -- in any further proceedings. The court barred Ildico from using the photographs, saying the exporter had not made a “sufficiently diligent” search for them earlier. Judge Jane Restani allowed continued use of the sample crystals for now but said she was “mystified” by the actions of both parties (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).
Scheduled maintenance on the Court of International Trade's CM/ECF system will make it unavailable to users Feb. 17, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST, the court announced.
DOJ’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using a late discovery production in any subsequent proceedings, or alternatively to reopen discovery, is just an “illusory claim” because no new information has actually surfaced, the exporter argued Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).
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).
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.
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).
A German forged steel fluid end block exporter Jan. 22 for the most part supported the U.S. position in a remand redetermination that the Commerce Department couldn't make PMS adjustments for costs of production in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. It argued, however, that the department failed to address illegitimate PMS adjustments for two inputs for comparisons based on constructed value (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00077).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).