Court of International Trade activity

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

Building materials company Bruskin International made its first arguments to the Federal Circuit in a challenge to a change to the scope during an antidumping duty investigation, claiming that the Commerce Department made numerous and significant procedural errors in the scope modification in question, in an opening brief filed May 14.

The 22 states, along with Washington, D.C., that challenged the Trump administration's decision to transfer "ghost gun" blueprints from the U.S. Munitions List to the less-restrictive Commerce Control List will not seek a review of the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's decision to greenlight the move. According to a May 18 consent motion, lawyers for the State Department and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls requested that the court immediately issue the mandate in the case, claiming that they received the go-ahead from the plaintiffs. Brendan Selby, counsel for the plaintiff State of Washington, told the defense that the states consent to the "immediate issuance of the mandate."

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

CBP's failure to alert Fedmet Resources of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation or to publish public summaries in the proceeding violated the company's constitutional due process rights, Fedmet said in a May 21 complaint in the Court of International Trade.

A set of domestic steel producers will not be allowed to intervene in six challenges to the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 tariff exclusions to steel importers, following a May 25 decision from the Court of International Trade. "The Court concludes that the proposed intervenors are ineligible to intervene as a matter of law and therefore denies their motions," said Judge Miller Baker in the decision. "Nevertheless, the Court reiterates its willingness to entertain motions to appear as amici curiae."

“Good cause exists” for the Court of International Trade to grant Section 301 sample-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products leave to reply to DOJ’s opposition to the preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure, said Akin Gump’s motion filed late May 20 in docket 1:21-cv-52.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade erred in finding that the Commerce Department improperly applied a particular market situation when addressing purported distortions to costs of production in the 2015-16 antidumping administrative review on welded line pipe from South Korea, U.S. domestic pipe manufacturer Welspun Tubular LLC argued in its May 17 opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing that Commerce's interpretation of the PMS statute is entitled to deference and that the agency's finding of a PMS in South Korea is supported by substantial evidence, Welspun argued that CIT's reading of 2015's Trade Preferences Extension Act in a decision issued by the lower court on Jan. 4 would lead to "absurd results."