The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, except Taizhou United Imp. & Exp., are appealing a Court of International Trade ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and CVD respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability over whether certain aluminum extrusion suppliers are "authorities." The plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. At CIT, Judge Leo Gordon ruled that Commerce appropriately applied adverse facts available in the 2013 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2205100076). The plaintiffs challenged Commerce's position that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions for less than adequate remuneration was specific on an industry basis. Gordon said the plaintiffs pointed out a wide variety of uses for glass but didn't engage with Commerce's analysis of the record finding the recipients of government authority-provided glass are limited in number to at least two and possibly four industries (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #16-00009).
Byungmin Chae, an individual who took the customs broker license exam, is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Court of International Trade decision dismissing his appeal of five questions on the exam, according to the July 12 notice of appeal. At the trade court, Judge Timothy Reif said that CBP was right to dismiss Chae's appeal of four of the questions but that the agency wrongly denied the test taker's appeal for the fifth question (see 2206060055). The reversal of the remaining question was not enough for a passing grade, though, since Chae was two questions shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the test before taking his case to court (Byungmin Chae v. Secretary of the Treasury, CIT #20-00316).
The U.S., in defending its affirmative evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case against Leco Supply, unlawfully seeks to rely on adverse inferences that CBP did not make while also conflating CBP's error in failing to follow its own regulations over the redaction of non-business confidential information with the due process violations that stem from its failure to follow those regulations, Leco argued. Submitting a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, Leco continues to pursue its constitutional claims against CBP's evasion proceeding while tackling the agency's evidentiary basis for the evasion finding and its use of adverse inferences (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 order lifted a stay in an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite its recent decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion denied a motion from Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, to dismiss a penalty action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Timothy Reif said that the U.S. properly identified the "who, what, when, where, and how" of Ho's alleged fraud over the alleged illegal importation of HID headlight conversion kits, so personal jurisdiction was established. However, Reif denied in part and granted in part Ho's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the U.S. made insufficient factual allegations on Ho's knowledge and intent to violate customs law based on fraud, but giving the U.S. the opportunity to amend its complaint.
Law firm Baron & Budd will invest "significant resources" from its whistleblower practice to look into allegations of customs fraud, the firm announced. Citing the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and continued by President Joe Biden, Baron & Budd said that it is impossible for CBP to catch every instance of customs fraud, opening the door for whistleblowers to help out with customs enforcement. The firm encouraged whistleblowers with information about a company evading tariffs or duties to bring a False Claims Act lawsuit, which allows the whistleblowers to get a cut of the money recovered by the government in a successful FCA case.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty review, U.S. steel company Nucor Corp. argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the review, Nucor took issue with the evidentiary flaws with the cost data that Commerce used, telling the agency that it was illegal to say that the data reflected market-based costs. The suit mirrors the language in a separate case brought by Nucor over a different CVD review (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00171).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).