The Government of Ontario won't participate in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. Ontario gave notice of its non-participation on July 27 in the case. In March, the Court of International Trade sustained all five of the Commerce Departments positions under contention in the investigation. The consolidated case includes challenges to the investigation from Marmen Energie, which was the mandatory respondent; the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario; and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, though now the Government of Ontario has dropped out of the appeal. Though it is out of the appeal, the court refused to drop the government from the case's official caption (The Government of Quebec, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).
The U.S. identified an incorrect standard for intervention in opposing exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in an antidumping proceeding at the Court of International Trade, SeAH argued in a July 29 brief. The exporter argued that it clearly has a right to intervene in the action since a CIT rule says that a party can intervene if it is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute. Given that a federal statute does just that since SeAH was a party to the underlying review in question, SeAH said it can intervene in the case (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).
DOJ asked the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 motion on behalf of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for permission to correct the administrative record in the Section 301 litigation to include 136 pages of documents not previously submitted in the cases. Virtually all the documents previously were in the public domain, and they include mostly news releases and Federal Register notices announcing USTR actions connected with the imposition of the four rounds of Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports dating to 2018.
South Africa requested World Trade Organization dispute consultations with the EU over certain import restrictions imposed by the EU on South African citrus fruit, the WTO said. The EU measures are phytosanitary requirements concerning oranges and other citrus products related to the Thaumatotibia leucotreta pest, known as the false codling moth. In its consultation, South Africa claimed the EU measures are inconsistent with various parts of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. South Africa characterized the changes as "abrupt and radical," in that they now require cold treatment processes and precooling steps for specific periods for the citrus before it is imported.
The EU General Court in a July 27 judgment rejected RT France's bid to annul sanctions levied against it in March. The restrictions bar EU operators from broadcasting and facilitating the broadcast of RT France and suspend any broadcasting license or arrangement with the media outlet. The court ruled that the European Council didn't violate the law in finding that RT France was controlled by the Russian government and issues statements backing the war in Ukraine. Further, the court dismissed the media company's challenge to the council's reasons for imposing the sanctions, the fairness of the procedures used to make the listing and the arguments that the sanctions were a disproportionate restriction on RT France's right to freedom of expression.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Dong-A Steel Co.'s bid to intervene in an antidumping duty case, the U.S. argued in a July 28 brief at the trade court. DOJ argued that Dong-A cannot show that it will suffer injury over the Commerce Department's finding over plaintiff HiSteel Co.'s dumping margin since Dong-A got its own individual dumping margin for its exports that would be unaffected by any decision in HiSteel's case (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a July 29 judgment dismissed ship reseller Crocus Investments's claim against Marine Transport Logistics' high storage fees. The court ruled that the Federal Maritime Commission appropriately changed its interpretation of 46 U.S.C. Section 41102(c), which bars certain ocean transportation industry members for failing to enforce reasonable regulations relating to storing property. The new interpretation says that a party is only liable for violations of this rule occurring on a continued basis and not a one-off mishap (Crocus Investments v. Federal Maritime Commission, D.C. Cir. #21-1199).