The Commerce Department misidentified two South Korean government programs as countervailable subsidies, including one that it had previously deemed too unspecific, a Korean steel exporter said Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Washington on Jan. 30 granted in part and denied in part importer Yakima Products' bid to seal parts of the complaint in a False Claims Act whistleblower suit against the company's alleged failure to pay import duties and false identification of the country of origin (United States v. Yakima Products Inc., D. Wash. # 21-0524).
The Commerce Department unfairly assumed four Chinese tire exporters were under government control because they couldn't participate as separate rate respondents in a 6-year-old administrative review, importers and exporters said Feb. 2 in comments on the department’s remand determination in an antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
In a Jan. 31 supplemental filing after oral arguments held a week earlier by the Court of International Trade, petitioners again rejected the Commerce Department's calculation of a Turkish exporter's duty drawback adjustment. On the same day, DOJ pushed back in its own supplemental filings on a pair of questions from the court (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
The U.S. waived its right to file a response to a U.S. Supreme Court petition in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the government's waiver, filed Feb. 2, that it won't respond to the petition "unless requested to do so by the Court" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).
Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal on Feb. 5 with the Court of International Trade in both of their cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. The dismissals were filed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision not to review a case from exporter Oman Fasteners on the same issue (see 2401080037). The high court's refusal to hear the case marked the sixth time the court turned down the opportunity to review presidential Section 232 action taken under President Donald Trump. The cases brought by J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. were stayed until the Oman Fastener matter was final (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).
The Court of International Trade's mediation in a challenge from importer California Steel Industries seeking exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties "did not result in a settlement," the court said in a Feb. 2 report of mediation. While Judge M. Miller Baker presides over the case, Judge Leo Gordon served as "Judge Mediator" for the process, which wrapped up Feb. 1 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
Importer Fit for Life sought reinstatement of its customs challenge Feb. 2 after it was dismissed that same day due to lack of prosecution (Fit for Life LLC v. U.S., CIT #20-00006).