The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).

The U.S. cannot demand Customs Passenger Processing Fee payments for trips for which customers have canceled their tickets and are issued refunds in the form of travel vouchers, Southwest Airlines argued in a May 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. CBP's move to collect the fees violates the statute's plain terms, which lay out that CBP is entitled to this fee only when a passenger actually travels on a plane from outside the U.S. into the U.S., the complaint said (Southwest Airlines Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00141).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 6 affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling in a customs spat over tobacco wraps. Submitting an opinionless judgment order, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes affirmed the trade court's decision to allow the results of a particular customs test into evidence used to weigh the tobacco wraps.

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).

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.

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).

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 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.