The U.S. agreed to apply Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to 13 of importer California Steel Industries' entries. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on March 11, California Steel and the government said they settled all issues in the case, additionally noting that Section 232 duties applied to one of the importer's entries will be "final and non-protestable" (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Importer JBF Bahrain and the U.S. are progressing toward a settlement of the importer's customs case on CBP's denial of duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement for the company's polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imports. Filing a joint status report on March 12 at the Court of International Trade, JBF said it has "resolved technical issues and provided document production to the defendant," while the U.S., through CBP, continues to examine "representative samples of the raw materials, intermediate product, and imported product" (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
President Donald Trump's memo regarding the enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 65(c) likely won't affect trade litigation given that the Court of International Trade doesn't follow the FRCP and the existence of customs bonds, attorneys told Trade Law Daily.
Brandon Kennedy, a trial attorney in DOJ's international trade field office, has resigned from the agency, Kennedy confirmed to Trade Law Daily. He will be joining a law firm focusing on commercial litigation unrelated to international trade. Kennedy joined DOJ in 2020 as a trial attorney, focusing on customs-related litigation.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Masterank America dropped its customs case at the Court of International Trade, filing a notice of dismissal on March 10. The importer brought its suit in December 2024 to contest CBP's determination that its paraffin wax of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2712.20.0000, dutiable at 7.5%, has a country of origin of China. Masterank argued that the country of origin should be Taiwan. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Masterank America v. United States, CIT # 24-00235).
The Court of International Trade on March 10 dismissed a group of exporters' antidumping duty suit for lack of prosecution. Exporters Norma (India), USK Exports Private, Uma Shanker Khandelwal & Co. and Bansidhar Chiranjilal brought the case last month against the Commerce Department's 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on finished carbon steel flanges from India (see 2502030068). Counsel for the exporters said in an email that the companies decided not to pursue the case (Norma (India) Limited v. United States, CIT # 25-00037).
The U.S. defended its decision to find that Vietnamese currency undervaluation is de facto specific to the traded goods sector at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., the government said the exporter failed to undermine Commerce's conclusion that the traded goods sector was the "predominant user of the subsidy" (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00397).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week questioned the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in identifying "masked" dumping in the lead case on the use of the test, which returned to the appellate court after its initial remand in 2023. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark asked counsel for exporter SeAH Steel Corp. if Commerce has a "lot of discretion" in how it uses the test, and they asked the government's attorney if the agency has discretion to use the test even if it's statistically unsound (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The Commerce Department again failed to support its inclusion of marble composite tile made by Elysium Tiles within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on March 11. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's scope ruling for a second time, finding that the agency's focus on the tile's decorative features is irrelevant, and that Commerce engaged in a too-simple discussion on the additional processing the tile went through.