The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5 dismissed importer Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest suit concerning attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, in an injury proceeding at the International Trade Commission. Amsted Rail filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal a few days prior in the suit that the Court of International Trade previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057).
Country of origin cases
A case at the Court of International Trade contesting Commerce's lack of adjustment for non-selected companies' antidumping duty rates for export subsidies was dismissed on July 5 after agreement by all parties (Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry v. U.S., CIT # 23-00026). The case, originally brought in February by the Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry, contested as[ects of the final results of the AD administrative review on quartz surface products from India. The Quartz Federation had argued that Commerce inappropriately failed to adjust the cash deposit rate by the amount found to be subsidized in the companion CVD investigation (see 2302280014).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
CBP announced an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether Suzhou Quality Import and Export had evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China and imposed interim measures. The investigation followed a January allegation by the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, which said Suzhou Quality had entered Chinese-origin aluminum extrusions subject to the AD/CVD into the U.S. without declaring them subject to those orders or paying the required cash deposits.
The Commerce department’s decision to use the all-others rate from an earlier antidumping duty investigation on quartz surface products to calculate the rate for the non-selected respondents in the first administrative review should be remanded to the agency, AD petitioner Cambria said in a June 30 motion at the Court of International Trade (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
Tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente failed to address many of its claims before the Commerce Department in a case on the agency's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement, the government said in a reply brief. Issuing the brief after the trade court said Bioparques has the jurisdiction to challenge the decision, the U.S. addressed the remainder of the exporter's eight claims, arguing that Commerce's continuation of the investigation was "properly conducted" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT # 19-00204).
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).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 30 order accepted the amended opening brief and addendum filed by Kazakh exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to missed filing deadlines in an antidumping duty review. In submitting its amended brief, TKT submitted a version of its original opening brief with corrections sought by the clerk of the court and also a version with these corrections plus corrections additionally requested by the exporter. The appellate court accepted only the first form of these submissions (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).