Freight Rail Coupler Importer Ditches Conflict-of-Interest Suit at CAFC
Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
At the appellate court, ARC argued that CIT did have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since jurisdiction was manifestly inadequate under Section 1581(c) (see 2301170052).
The case deals with a past injury investigation on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and a present injury investigation on the same goods from China and Mexico. ARC originally employed Wiley Rein, where Pickard was a partner at the time, but after filing a petition for ARC, Pickard moved to Buchanan, where ARC said he used the company’s information against it in what ARC described as a "betrayal.”