Jacob Kopnick

The antidumping and countervailing duties that importer Fedmet Resources now has to pay as a result of a CBP duty evasion ruling amounts to an "embargo" and deprives Fedmet of market access, the importer argued in a Nov. 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, CBP violated Fedmet's due process rights by not even notifying the importer of the existence of the investigation until the interim measures were put in place and not giving it an opportunity to respond to evidence against it, the brief said (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).

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

CBP erred when it found that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, the two companies said in a Nov. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Accused of evading the orders via transshipping the grates through South Korea and also misclassifying the entries, Ikadan and Gaosai said that the evasion finding cuts against CBP's own analysis as to the scope of the orders and represents an improper attempt to retroactively apply AD/CV duties (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592)

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

The Court of International Trade issued its final judgment in the Transpacific Steel case that held that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day time frame for action set out in the statute (see 2107130059). After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned CIT's original decision finding such action illegal, the trade court reversed its decision concurrent with the appellate court's mandate, in a Nov. 22 judgment. Plaintiffs in the case recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2111150061) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's reversion to its initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in an antidumping duty investigation, both the plaintiff, Borusan Mannemsann, and the antidumping petitioners said. However, the sides were divided over what to do about Commerce's failure to address Borusan's date of sale, with Borusan simply calling for CIT to sustain the results and the petitioners calling for another remand to address the sale date issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

A group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor urged the District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 22 to toss a case against them filed by the Mexican government alleging that they fueled violence in Mexico through firearms sales practices that are illegal. Characterizing the suit as a "clash of national values," the gun manufacturers argued that the Mexican government's case represents a threat to America's constitutional freedoms and should be dismissed for myriad reasons -- chief among them the fact that Mexico does not have standing to sue these companies (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

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