The Court of International Trade on March 18 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a domestic pipe producer seeking to compel CBP to provide it with information related to an alleged duty evasion scheme by two importers. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while the trade court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, Wheatland Tube Company improperly submitted its requests for information to CBP, and the agency properly rejected Wheatland's request to revoke a ruling letter.

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps should not be allowed to amend its complaint since the case cannot be amended to claim jurisdiction over a denied protest after the 180-day window to file a challenge has lapsed, the Justice Department said in a March 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. also contested Dr. Bronner's motion since it sought to only amend the complaint and not the summons (All One God Faith v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00164).

The government can seek reclassification of an importer's merchandise in court at a higher duty rate, even when CBP did not previously pursue the rate increase against the importer, DOJ said in March 15 brief in support of its counterclaim in a tariff classification suit brought by Cyber Power -- which says the counterclaim sets a dangerous precedent (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).

Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied on March 16 U.S. pipe maker Welspun Tubular's motion for rehearing in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping duty proceeding. The appellate court issued a two-page order denying the en banc rehearing motion without a further explanation (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.

Importer Root Sciences was denied on March 15 its motion for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade ruling that CBP's seizure of Root's imports precluded a deemed exclusion, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the case. Judge Gary Katzmann said that because the reconsideration motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s reasoning on matters fully litigated, devoid of showing manifest error, it is insufficient to warrant reconsideration and is denied."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should affirm the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) products from China by way of transshipment via the United Arab Emirates, defendant-appellee Steel Dynamics said March 14 in a reply brief filed with the appeals court. The UAE company's processing was minor or insignificant, marked by a low level of investment in the UAE, Steel Dynamics said (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1199).

The risk of court-annexed mediation in an antidumping duty case "far outweighs the benefit," defendant-intervenor GEO Specialty Chemicals said in a March 14 brief opposing plaintiff Nagase & Co.'s bid for mediation, telling the trade court that it "vigorously" opposes Nagase's claim that an alleged error in Nakase's AD rate is easily correctable (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

The Commerce Department's rejection of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' filing in an antidumping duty sunset review -- which resulted in the revocation of the nearly 40-year-old order on chloropicrin from China -- was a "marked abuse of discretion" given that the producers' lawyer was impaired with "medical and technical issues," plaintiff-appellants, led by Trinity Manufacturing, said in a March 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).