The Court of International Trade granted steel importer North American Interpipe refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties it paid following court mediation over the company's challenge to the U.S.'s denials of NAI's exclusion requests from the tariffs. Per the public stipulated judgment on agreed-upon fact, Judge M. Miller Baker penned an order which declares that NAI may not appeal (North American Interpipe v. United States, CIT #20-03825).
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act taken as a whole authorizes expedited countervailing duty reviews, the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick along with six Canadian companies argued in a March 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When taking into account the context of the URAA, its legislative history and the legislative process through which the URAA was adopted, it's clear that Congress meant to establish an expedited review process, the Canadian parties argued.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly decided not to consider off-peak electricity sold for less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty administrative review, DOJ said in a March 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to a motion for judgment from petitioner Nucor Corporation, DOJ said that Nucor's arguments merely dispute how Commerce weighed the evidence alleging that the provision of off-peak electricity for LTAR was a countervailable subsidy (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00182).
During oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, three judges questioned the use of a particular statistical test, the Cohen's d test, that is used to identify "masked" dumping in antidumping proceedings. The inquiry built off a July 2021 Federal Circuit ruling that called the use of the test into question since the Commerce Department failed to fulfill certain statistical requirements before running the test (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1747).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade stayed the deadline for DOJ's response to an amicus brief filed by the American Apparel and Footwear Association in a lawsuit on a seized shipment of palm oil over forced labor concerns. The palm oil shipment was entered by importer Virtus Nutrition and was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made in Malaysia by forced labor (Virtus Nutrition v. United States, CIT #21-00165).
The Court of International Trade should not permit the U.S. to add an entire customs broker license exam to the record of a case contesting the results of one individual's exam results, counsel for Byungmin Chae argued in a March 7 reply brief. There are no "extraordinary reasons" that warrant the inclusion of the entire 80-question exam, as only five questions are being contested, Chae said (Byungmin Chae v. Secretary of The Treasury, CIT #20-00316).
A Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter, along with its affiliates, filed for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade, arguing the trade court failed to address the company's alternative arguments on a host of issues. The issues, which include claims about the specificity of an alleged benefit and whether certain input suppliers are government entities, are fully briefed and "ripe for decision," the motion for rehearing said (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT #16-00009).
A Canadian exporter's challenge of antidumping cash deposit instructions should be dismissed since the company can obtain a review of the cash deposit rate through an already initiated USMCA panel review, DOJ said in a March 4 brief. What the exporter, J.D. Irving, really wants is to not pay current cash deposits at the current rate, DOJ told the Court of International Trade. Even if the court finds it does have jurisdiction over the cash deposit instructions, the case still should be dismissed since the payment of cash deposits doesn't establish standing since it isn't an injury, DOJ said (J.D. Irving Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).