The Department of Justice opposed the bid by plaintiffs in an antidumping duty challenge for a separate briefing schedule apart from a briefing on a voluntary remand requested by the defense, in an Oct. 12 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Pirelli Tyre Co., feel as though the voluntary remand will not touch on the issues they raised by bringing their case to CIT, so they want a separate briefing schedule on their case. DOJ argues that this is "both inefficient and likely to lead to confusion of the issues in this case" (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00115).

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

Hyundai Steel Co. signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an AD review dropping a particular market situation adjustment to Hyundai's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test, in Oct. 12 comments at the Court of International Trade. However, Hyundai, one of the mandatory respondents in the 24th administrative review of the AD duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea, went after Commerce's decision to still hold that a PMS exists for hot-rolled coil -- a key input of the subject merchandise -- even though it dropped the PMS adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. The court held that both the PMS adjustment and the PMS finding itself were unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, Hyundai pointed out (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

An importer’s lawsuit against its customs broker for the broker’s alleged failure to stay on top of issues related to some FDA-regulated entries will continue, after a judge of the Western Washington U.S. District Court declined to halt the discovery process in the case. The broker says its terms and conditions cut its liability to a mere $200, but the judge said the importer’s arguments that those liability limits are invalid could be bolstered by more evidence.

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. After previously remanding Commerce's application of AFA for lack of substantial evidence, Judge Miller Baker sustained Commerce's remand results after Commerce switched out the grounds on which it based its AFA finding.

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to hear a case over CBP's failure to issue full Section 301 refunds, importer FD Sales Company argued in an Oct. 8 reply brief. Although CBP "approved" the importer's protest covering 60 entries seeking the refunds, FD Sales argued that the protest was effectively denied when CBP failed to fully grant the refunds, thus giving CIT jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (FD Sales Company, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

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

The International Trade Commission properly found that imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet from Oman injured the U.S. domestic industry, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 30 opinion made public Oct. 8. Addressing multiple challenges from the sole Omani exporter of PET sheet, OCTAL Inc., Judge Timothy Reif held that the ITC made all of its determinations in line with the governing statutes and with substantial evidence.

The Court of International Trade does in fact have jurisdiction to hear a case over denied attorney access to confidential information in a safeguard proceeding at the International Trade Commission, counsel for LG Electronics told the court in an Oct. 6 reply brief. The denial of access to the proceeding constitutes a final agency action, making the denial eligible for judicial review, the brief said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The Commerce Department properly found that it had enough industry support to initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products (QSP) from India, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 7 decision. Issuing a partial opinion in the case solely to address the concerns of M S International (MSI), Judge Leo Gordon said that Commerce legally interpreted "producers" of QSPs as excluding QSP fabricators.