The Court of International Trade on March 28 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on wood mouldings and millwork from China. Judge Leo Gordon said that Chinese exporter Jeld-Wen failed to successfully argue that laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is not included in the domestic like product for wood mouldings and millwork and that other economic factors, and not imports, caused the domestic injury. On the latter point, Gordon said that Jeld-Wen needed to show that its conclusion is the only one to be drawn from the record and not the preferred one -- something the plaintiff failed to do.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department unlawfully decided not to initiate a changed circumstances review following GreenFirst Forest Productions' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's lumber mills, GreenFirst said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. GreenFirst said that Commerce misapplied agency practice in denying the CCR since RYAM's rate was not based on any subsidies it received. The agency also violated Congress' directive to investigate changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review when it declined to embark on the CCR (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a March 28 filing at the Court of International Trade so it can reconsider its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The remand is appropriate given Commerce's "evolving practice" on the topic, the brief said. In a separate countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found that it was able to verify that a respondent's U.S. customers did not use the program without certain information requested from the Chinese government (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).
The Court of International Trade in a March 28 decision denied mattress importer Ashley Furniture Industries and its foreign manufacturers a request for an open-ended injunction in an antidumping duty case. Judge Timothy Reif said that the plaintiffs failed to show that the threat of liquidation posed immediate irreparable harm and that they clearly had a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case. The decision cuts against two other CIT decisions granting an open-ended injunction.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. declined to take up a key case over the president's power under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. Rejecting a petition from importer Transpacific Steel and several other companies, SCOTUS in effect upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said that the president can increase tariffs under Section 232 beyond procedural time limits.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade denied pig farrowing crate importer Ikadan System USA's motion for an extension of time to file its monition for judgment but stayed the case until the court sorts through the importer's motion to supplement the record. Ikadan requested the extension since it found out that certain items weren't in the administrative record. Instead of extending the briefing schedule as the plaintiff requested, Judge Leo Gordon stayed the briefing in the case until the matter is sorted out. In response, the U.S. filed a motion stating its lack of opposition to Ikadan's bid to supplement the record despite not conferring with the Justice Department. Ikadan then filed a confidential brief giving the court the missing information (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).
The Commerce Department's decision to find that the South Korean government provided electricity below cost for certain tariff classes but still say that electricity provision conferred a non-measurable benefit is illegal, U.S. steel company Nucor Corporation said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).
Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD moved to withdraw its case seeking to recover nearly 550 pounds of hemp detained by CBP. Filing at the U.S.District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the company said that since 16.5 months had elapsed since the seizure, the hemp's value has deteriorated so much that the continued litigation of the case will cost more than the shipment is worth. "For this expense-based reason, and for this reason alone, We CBD hereby withdraws its Verified Claim," the brief said (U.S. v. Approximately 548.22 Pounds of Hemp Detained from We CBD on November 8, 2020, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00267).