Jacob Kopnick

The Court of International Trade plans to bring about half of its staff back to its Foley Square location in New York by mid-July, Chief Judge Mark Barnett told Trade Law Daily. The court has not had a scheduled staff presence in its building since March 2020, with certain staff members entering the building on an ad hoc basis, the judge said. The goal is a "sustained reopening" with half of the employees continuing to telework for a few months beginning this summer.

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

Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.

Guardian Insurance Company was found not to be liable for the losses of a food importer totaling over $500,000 that expired due to COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a May 24 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Since the stay-at-home orders that allegedly led to the seafood imports rotting exempted the food industry, Guardian was able to avoid liability for the food losses.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results that, unprompted by court order, raised the antidumping rate for Indian steel exporter Venus Wire Industries, in a June 2 opinion. Though Judge Mark Barnett had in November only ordered Commerce to further explain its use of partial AFA in the underlying review, Commerce also changed its calculations to raise the AD rate on Venus for its stainless steel bar exports from India from 5.35% to 24.6%.

The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents' rate no longer applies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, as opposed to heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which would be eligible for duty-free Generalized System of Preferences benefits program treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said.

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

Steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. agreed to the Commerce Department's remand results dropping the cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test for imports of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to May 28 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The Department of Justice also signed off on the remand results, finding that although Commerce filed the results under respectful protest, continuing to find a PMS in Thailand, the agency complied with court orders by scrapping the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

The Biden administration doesn't have a timeline for its decision on whether to allow states to import drugs from Canada, according to a May 28 memo supporting a motion to dismiss a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America had challenged President Donald Trump's administration for allowing states to bring in Canadian drugs as a measure to control costs. The memo said that because no specific program has been authorized for imports, the plaintiffs “cannot establish any actual injury” relating to the presidential decision (Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., D.D.C. #20-03402).