Exporter Bridgestone Americas Tires opposed March 25 the U.S. motion to consolidate two cases regarding the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (see 2503060053) (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies USA an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case.
Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann on March 27 denied a motion to dismiss a U.S. claim against German thermal paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper, for nearly $200 million in duties unpaid by the now-defunct Papierfabrik August Koehler. He said that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over the case because Koehler Oberkirch is the successor-in-interest of Papierfabrik August Koehler; meanwhile, Koehler Paper, due to the U.S. fraud allegation, is the successor-in-interest of Koehler Oberkirch (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).
The Court of International Trade on March 27 held that the International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses" in injury proceedings is "unlawful." Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice is "inconsistent with statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense." The judge said the practice leads to treating "publicly available information as confidential," treating the same information inconsistently based only on how the ITC obtained it, and impermissibly designating information as confidential unilaterally. Vaden went through various information dubbed confidential in an injury proceeding on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, finding that all but one piece of it was improperly redacted.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on March 20 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying the exporter had failed to notify a USMCA panel of its lawsuit (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
Petitioner United Steel, Paper, and Forestry said March 24 that the U.S. was wrongly seeking to narrow the scope of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department "violated its statutory obligations" to gain adequate support to launch an antidumping duty investigation, importers led by Tenaris Bay City argued in their March 24 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tenaris Bay said Commerce failed to examine "intermingled" oil country tubular goods mill and processor production data and proxy shipment information used "in lieu of missing production data" provided by the petitioners "to confirm its accuracy and adequacy contrary to its statutory obligation" (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
The Court of International Trade granted three wildlife advocacy groups' voluntary dismissal of a case seeking an import ban on fisheries from nine countries after the groups reached a settlement with the U.S. government. Judge Gary Katzmann dropped the case, though he retained jurisdiction over the matter to oversee implementation of the settlement, at the parties' request.
The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case. The judge held that the harms suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of CBP's actions "are not time-sensitive harms that will become irremediable in the near future," that the harms suffered are not "extraordinary" and that it's not clear that a speedy end of the case serves the public interest.