Boutique law firm Fick & Marx filed suit against Joseph Baptiste, a defendant in a previous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case, for breach of contract since he has allegedly failed to pay the firm for services rendered on his behalf in the FCPA case. Taking to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the firm said that Baptiste has "repeatedly promised to pay" his tab, which now amounts to over $160,000, but has failed to do so even over a year later (Fick & Marx v. Joseph Baptiste, D. Mass. # 23-12097).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case on xanthan gum from China, DOJ argued in its Sept. 12 response at the Court of International Trade. In June, Commerce stuck by its decisions to apply adverse facts available to Meihua, not to rescind its review of Deosen Biochemical, and not to recalculate a separate rate, in spite of a court order to reconsider all three (see 2306280043) (Meihua Group International (Hong Kong) v. U.S., CIT # 22-00069).

Groups of exporters and importers filed complaints in 19 separate cases this week challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China covering exports from Vietnam.

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expenses calculation for the 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea remains unsupported by substantial evidence after a remand, South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel said in its Sept. 12 comments to the Court of International Trade. Hyundai partially opposed the remand results despite the department's lowering of Hyundai's dumping margin, from 19.54% to 9.63% (see 2308160065) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00138).

The Court of International Trade isn't "statutorily barred from granting" importer PrimeSource Building Products' request for a court order stopping CBP from collecting Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the importer, PrimeSource said in a Sept. 12 reply brief. Addressing the government's claim that the trade court lacks the authority to grant the partial stay, the importer said the request, which seeks a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the case challenging the expansion of Section 232 duties to cover "derivative" products, seeks relief from CIT and not the appellate court (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).

Zulaika Mayfield of San Francisco filed a class-action lawsuit against aluminum foil maker Reynolds Consumer Products accusing the company of falsely claiming its goods are "Made in U.S.A." Filing suit at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Mayfield said Reynolds' false representations violate California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Zulaika Mayfield v. Reynolds Consumer Products, N.D. Cal. # 3:23-04587).

The Commerce Department illegally assigned adverse facts available to Vietnamese hardwood plywood producers for alleged "deficiencies, inconsistencies and/or contradictions in their responses," as part of an antidumping and countervailing duty anti-circumvention proceeding, importer USPLY said in a Sept. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to tell the Vietnamese producers of these supposed consistencies or give them an opportunity to rebut them, the importer argued (USPLY v. United States, CIT # 23-0156).

CBP will pay importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America $494,902.80 to resolve the company's lawsuit, which said the agency failed to refund excess antidumping duty cash deposits. Per the Sept. 11 stipulated judgment, Marubeni will drop its claims against the government (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America v. U.S., CIT # 23-00004).

The Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction to hear importer Greentech Energy Solution's claims challenging CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 motion to dismiss. The "protest procedure" at CIT and "judicial review" under Section 1581(a) are not "manifestly inadequate" to review Greentech's claims, barring review under Section 1581(i), the government said (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).