The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 denied Miller & Chevalier's motion for a limited lifting of the stay imposed by the trade court in a handful of new cases seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The Court of International Trade erred in holding that the rule established in the USMCA requiring parties seeking CIT review of antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings to provide proper notice is a jurisdictional rule, exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 13 opening brief (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1155).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 confirmed that the government's stipulation regarding the availability of refunds from tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "applies to all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs."
International trade firm Grunfeld Desiderio has promoted Kristina Barry to partner, the firm announced. Barry joined the firm in 2018 as an associate after graduating from Brooklyn Law School and serving as a law clerk at the Court of International Trade.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Jan. 12 opposed a group of importers' bid to add two claims to their case challenging CBP's initiation of an Enforce and Protect Act duty evasion investigation as "untimely" and the interim measures imposed as a violation of the importers' due process rights (Centric Pipe v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00182).
The Commerce Department properly picked Turkey as a third country comparison market and decided that no adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of manufacturing was necessary in the AD investigation on melamine from Qatar, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 9 response to petitioner Cornerstone Chemical's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).
The U.S. argued on Jan. 12 that the "undisputed facts" show that importer Lanxess' polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to speed up the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- can't accelerate a chemical reaction "in its condition as imported," thus removing it from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3915 as a "reaction accelerator" (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: