Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and are in fact ordinary customs duties, meaning they should be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to exporter Nippon Steel Corporation's arguments attempting to overturn the trade court's prior ruling on the issue in three other cases, DOJ argued that Section 232 duties are imposed to address imports that threaten national security and not to boost the economic welfare of U.S. industries, making them non-remedial (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00533).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, namely Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, expressed doubt over exporter Shanxi Hairui Trade Co.'s argument that the Commerce Department should have excluded an adverse facts available rate when calculating the all-others rate in the relevant administrative review. Moore said at a May 3 oral argument that she thought Commerce articulated its decision on "sound, clear, rational bases" especially given the "gamesmanship" going on the sampling process (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).

The Commerce Department properly found that Indian exporter Uttam Galva failed to report an affiliated cross-owned company in a countervailing duty proceeding, warranting the use of adverse facts available and a 588.43% CVD rate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 5 opinion. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said the exporter didn't show that the affiliated company's financial statement could rebut the inclusion of 20 subsidy programs supposedly given to it, permitting the subsidies' inclusion in Uttam Galva's rate.

Washington state did not simply remove the threat of prosecution over the possession and distribution of marijuana and marijuana "paraphernalia," and in fact legalized it, making importer Keirton USA's import of marijuana "drug paraphernalia" legal, the importer argued in a May 2 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP tried to argue that the importation of such paraphernalia was illegal since Washington merely decriminalized possession of the materials rather than legalizing it. Keirton argued that this is untrue and that CBP admitted as much in a headquarters ruling (Keirton USA v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. defended its expert witness in a customs classification dispute from a motion to remove the witness, Dr. Athanasios Meliopoulos, in a May 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that Meliopoulos is "eminently qualified" to give his opinion on a key question in the case -- whether the imported electrical conduit tubing is lined with insulating materials -- and that his testimony is admissible since it is relevant to resolving this key factual dispute in the matter at hand (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT #20-00074).

The Court of International Trade remanded elements of the Commerce Department's administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In an April 25 opinion made public May 3 submitted in two cases -- one brought by the sole mandatory respondent NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co. and the other by Catfish Farmers of America, et al. -- Judge M. Miller Baker sent back parts of the review that deal with Commerce's position over whether Indonesia has a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam, whether the Indian factors of production data are the best available as compared to Indonesia, Commerce's failure to engage with contradicting evidence over NTSF's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of NTSF's fillets.

The Court of International Trade in a May 2 order rejected Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's bid to establish expedited briefing and consideration of its challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping duty cash deposit instructions. Judge Timothy Reif said the exporter failed to establish that "good cause" exists to expedite the case since the company's requested relief can be granted even after the deadline to withdraw its request for the fourth review of the AD order on softwood lumber products from Canada.

President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to cover "derivative" products beyond certain procedural timelines was illegal since it was not part of the Section 232 tariffs' original "plan of action," a group of three steel importers argued. Filing a response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellees took into account the Federal Circuit's previous ruling permitting a different tariff action beyond procedural time limits to argue that the expansion onto derivatives was illegal.

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, didn't need to file a protest to establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries since there was nothing to protest within 180 days of liquidation, SIS said in an April 29 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ continues to "improperly oversimplify the analysis" by repeating the "mantra" that the importer was required to file a protest to contest the liquidation of the entries, SIS argued, seeking remand to the Court of International Trade (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1161).