The Court of International Trade dismissed a case brought by the U.S. government seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In a March 28 opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted Katana's motion to dismiss based on an expired statute of limitations. The judge ruled that Katana was allowed to revoke an earlier statute of limitations waiver and concluded that without the waiver, any action by CBP is barred by the passage of time (United States v. Katana Racing Inc., d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT #19-00125).

The submission or completion of CBP and Department of Defense forms related to imports of household goods and personal effects constitutes "customs business" and requires any third-party filers to be licensed customs brokers, the agency said in September ruling that was recently released. The ruling came in response to an internal CBP information request from the Port of Baltimore on the requirements for the submission of CBP forms 3461, 7501, 3299, and DOD Form 1252.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).

German exporter BGH Edestahl Siegen's claim that its higher costs preempt any countervailability findings don't comport with U.S. countervailing duty law, U.S. manufacturer Ellwood City Forge said in a March 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment, Ellwood said CVD statute and the Commerce Department's regulations don't dismiss subsidy programs that alleviate high costs that may be high due to government policies themselves (BGH Edestahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT #21-00080).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's request for a stay of its mandate during the company's appeal to the Supreme Court. In a March 23 order, Judges William Bryson and Todd Hughes rebuffed both of Welspun's arguments, which claimed that the company would suffer irreparable harm without a stay and that there's a reasonable shot the Supreme Court will reverse the appellate court's judgment (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

U.S. steel manufacturer Maverick Tube lied to the Commerce Department when it objected to importer Maple Leaf Marketing's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, MLM told the Court of International Trade in a March 18 brief. As such, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security's decision to deny these requests cannot be sustained, MLM argued. It urged the trade court to remand the case so Commerce can add communications the agency had with a subject matter expert on whose word the exclusion requests were denied (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT #20-00125).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a case brought by steel company NLMK Pennsylvania and Indiana alleging that U.S. Steel lied to the Commerce Department to get NLMK's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs denied. Judge William Stickman said it's unclear whether NLMK submitted a viable claim of unfair competition under Pennsylvania state law, but even if it did, federal law preempts the claim (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S. Steel Corporation, W.D. Pa. #21-00273).

The Commerce Department failed to explain how a particular market situation existed for hot-rolled coil in the Indian market such that it affected antidumping duty respondents' costs of production, the Court of International Trade said in a March 11 opinion made public March 21. Judge Claire Kelly said that while Commerce identified market phenomena that could have distorted the price of HRC, the agency failed to show how the collective impact of these phenomena is unique to the Indian market and constitutes a PMS. Kelly also remanded Commerce's regression analysis used to adjust for the PMS, should the agency find that one still exists.

Antidumping petitioner Welspun Tubular plans to appeal to the Supreme Court over the question of whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping proceeding. According to a March 22 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Welspun wants a stay in the mandate issued by the appellate court nixing the PMS adjustment while the Supreme Court considers the case (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

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.