The Commerce Department erred by including manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos' products within the scope of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe from Mexico and by collapsing respondent Maquilacero and Tecnicas, its affiliate, in the 2022-23 administrative review of the order, Maquilacero and Tecnicas argued in a motion for judgment (Maquilacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. on Dec. 29 filed responses to various motions for preliminary injunctions in cases challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that the Court of International Trade's decision in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection settles the issue.
The Court of International Trade last week denied several wildlife advocacy groups' request to expedite consideration of the groups' motion to enforce their settlement agreement with the Commerce Department regarding the importation of fish from all countries that don't have fishery regulations comparable to the United States' (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).
A group of importers opposed the government's motion to dismiss the companies' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for lack of jurisdiction or cause of action, arguing that their claims are properly being raised as counterclaims and don't need to independently qualify for the trade court's other jurisdictional grants (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process (see 2412190059).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
In a Dec. 16 response to several wildlife advocacy groups’ request that the Court of International Trade compel the Commerce Department to comply with a settlement agreement (see 2512150022), the government opposed an expedited schedule, saying the groups’ “own delay has contributed to the compressed time schedule” (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).
The U.S. defended its decision made on remand to include exporter Cheng Shin's temporary-use (T-type) tires within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Responding to comments from Cheng Shin on Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce reasonably found that Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fits passenger cars and, therefore, are in-scope merchandise," and additionally don't qualify for the exclusion for temporary tires (United Steel Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).
The Commerce Department erred in assigning total adverse facts available to respondent Vinlong Stainless Steel (Vietnam) in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Vietnam, Vinlong and importer Norca Industrial argued in a Dec. 23 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00132).