A Commerce Department determination to apply adverse facts available to Thai pipe exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company in an antidumping administrative review and spurn the company's sales and cost databases based on a notice of investigation in an evasion case is "egregious," Saha Thai said in a June 15 motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade. Saha Thai expressed particular concern over Commerce's decision to include the company's U.S. sales of dual-certified pipe in its calculation of the antidumping duty margin since it had already been determined that a scope ruling on dual-certified pipe did not apply to entries covered by the 2018-19 administrative review (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00049).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 15 affirmed without opinion a lower court ruling that found women’s trousers made of a yarn extruded from a slurry that contained zinc nanoparticles are not classifiable in the tariff schedule as if they were made from metallized yarn. The appeals court’s Rule 36 judgment follows oral argument held Oct. 10 in the case, appealed by Lockhart Textiles. The decision is non-precedential, and contains no explanation.

It could take two to three years to resolve the massive Section 301 litigation now before the Court of International Trade, especially since it’s “highly likely” the case will be appealed by whichever side loses, David Cohen, a trade expert with Sandler Travis, said on his law firm's webinar June 15. Roughly 3,800 importers are suing the government to declare the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods unlawful and get the money refunded.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department continues to hold that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel through cheap electricity and that the agency came to this conclusion in a legal way, despite a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to the contrary. In June 10 remand results in the Court of International Trade, Commerce explained why the Federal Circuit was mistaken in its ruling and why it used the appropriate methodology in determining that no benefit was conferred between the Korean government and producers POSCO and Hyundai Steel (POSCO v. United States, CIT #16-00227).

CBP was wrong to exclude certain motor frame assemblies from entry to the U.S. as "drug paraphernalia" since the goods, which will be used to make a marijuana processing machine, are legal in the states of Washington and Nevada, importer Eteros Technologies USA said in a June 11 complaint in the Court of International Trade. Eteros claims that there is an exemption to the law that bans the import of drug paraphernalia when a person who is allowed by local, state or federal law to "manufacture, possess or distribute 'drug paraphernalia.'" CBP has consistently failed to recognize this exemption, Eteros said (Eteros Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00287).

The Court of International Trade found again that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum “derivatives,” in a June 10 decision. Citing CIT's prior case on the topic, PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States (see 2104050049), Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu awarded refunds for tariffs paid to steel fastener importers Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. In Oman Fasteners, LLC. et al. v. United States, the court ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion. The panel's third member, Judge Miller Baker, concurred in part and dissented in part.

Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Dismissing a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, Judge Miller Baker found the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since the importers did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties.

Coinciding with an increased use of CBP's Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating possible antidumping and/or countervailing duty evasion is a feeling among importers that EAPA action is largely skewed toward the alleger. “Typically, the first notice the importer receives is after the agency has already accepted the allegation and imposed draconian ‘Interim Measures’ that treat the importers’ goods as subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties, a process" that "has proven to be massively unjust,” Mary Hodgins, a lawyer at Morris Manning, said by email. The process is facing increased scrutiny, with several lawsuits that raise due process questions making their way through the courts.

Antidumping duty China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available (AFA) even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative in an administrative review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 10 decision reversing a decision to the contrary from the Court of International Trade.