Even if adverse facts available were warranted for the calculation of an exporter’s rate, that rate should be set only to deter non-cooperation, not to destroy a company entirely, the exporter said Feb. 28 at the Court of International Trade (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. He also said the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.
The Commerce Department has released the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea (C-580-882). These final results, slightly lower than in the preliminary results, will be used to set final assessments of CV duties on importers for subject merchandise entered Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2021.
The Commerce Department is setting new countervailing duty cash deposit requirements for imports of aluminum lithographic printing plates from China (C-570-157), after finding illegal subsidization of Chinese producers in the preliminary determination of its CV duty investigation. Suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements will take effect for entries on or after March 1, the date that the preliminary determination is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register.
Lisa Bodenburg’s opposition to Apple’s motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of Apple’s motion to dismiss her first amended fraud complaint (see 2402220044) “misstates the legal standard” for a motion to stay and makes “unfounded accusations” against the company, said Apple’s reply Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-04409) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in support of the stay. The plaintiff alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they buy. Apple’s motion to stay discovery was timely filed and there’s no concern with that motion being heard alongside the motion to dismiss at the March 12 motion hearing, said the defendant’s reply. The request for a discovery stay would become moot if the court grants Apple’s motion to dismiss at the hearing, it said. A discovery stay otherwise “is likely to avoid unnecessary expense for the parties” and burden to the court before a decision on the motion to dismiss is issued, it said. Bodenburg also wrongly asserts that Apple misstated the legal standard for the motion to stay, it said. District courts routinely apply “a straightforward two-part test in determining whether to exercise their discretion to stay discovery,” it said. They consider whether a pending motion is potentially dispositive of the action and whether any discovery is necessary to decide the motion. Courts often take a “preliminary peek” at the pending motion to assess its potential merit before deciding whether to stay discovery, it said. Despite Bodenburg’s attempts to “complicate this analysis,” Apple’s pending motion to dismiss “clearly satisfies this two-part test,” it said. The motion to dismiss requires no discovery, and it’s “more than possible that it will be dispositive: it should end the case,” it said. Bodenburg also is incorrect that the requested discovery stay “will create havoc given the case schedule or that a discovery stay is unnecessary because of the scope of discovery sought to date,” said the reply. The plaintiff has made clear that she intends to seek “wide-ranging discovery,” including from third parties, “and posits that Apple can challenge such requests through motion practice” while the motion to dismiss is pending, it said. But Bodenburg’s position “is contrary to the fundamental purpose of a discovery stay,” the reply said. A stay is designed to avoid burdening the court with discovery-related motions “when a dispositive motion requiring no discovery is pending and forcing the parties to incur additional costs,” it said.
The U.S. in a Feb. 27 motion defended its decision to calculate energy costs for a review's mandatory respondent directly, rather than as part of the respondent's selling, general and administrative costs, saying that the calculation was made more accurate because the Commerce Department had been given better information from a surrogate than it had ever received before (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 27 ruled that Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. wasn't required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force before challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "under the particular facts of this case." But Judge Gary Katzmann denied the exporter's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Entity List, finding that the company was unlikely to succeed on three of its four claims against its listing.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 27 ruled that Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. wasn't required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force before challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List "under the particular facts of this case." But Judge Gary Katzmann denied the exporter's motion for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Entity List, finding that the company was unlikely to succeed on three of its four claims against its listing.
Various solar cell exporters and importers defended their right to intervene in a Court of International Trade lawsuit on the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian nations found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China. Filing a pair of reply briefs, the exporters and importers said they have the right to intervene since they have an "interest in the property or transaction at issue" (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).