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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, as opposed to heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which would be eligible for duty-free Generalized System of Preferences benefits program treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said.

The Department of Justice motioned the Court of International Trade late June 1 to dismiss the HMTX-Jasco sample case in the massive Section 301 litigation for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” HMTX-Jasco can’t establish that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative exceeded its “statutory authority” under the 1974 Trade Act when it ratcheted up the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports, nor did its actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “as they were not arbitrary and capricious,” the government’s 77-page filing in docket 1:21-cv-52 said.

CBP is investigating Gogo International in response to allegations of evasion of antidumping duties required on imported diamond sawblades from China, CBP said in a May 19 notice. The investigation stems from allegations filed under the Enforce and Protect Act by the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition, CBP said. The group alleged that Gogo evaded AD/CV duties using transshipment. The coalition is represented by Wiley lawyer Daniel Pickard. The Commerce Department recently issued a scope ruling in the case following a CBP request (see 2104300081).

The Department of Justice is debating with Chinese cabinet exporter Delian Meisen Woodworking Co. over whether the Commerce Department can construe false advertising materials as grounds to apply adverse facts available in antidumping proceedings. In an April 5 revised response revised again on May 26, DOJ argued that Meisen's inability to explain a discrepancy between its U.S. sales price and factors of production information resulting from false advertising lawfully led to Commerce applying AFA. Meisen in its corrected reply is fighting to establish that Commerce's antidumping investigations must be limited to the actual factors of production used to make the subject merchandise, lest AD proceedings be used to “take responsibility for enforcing a wide variety of U.S. laws and unfair business practices under the antidumping laws” (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).

The Commerce Department should further explain its decision to not verify customer self-certifications establishing non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, finally moving beyond the "endless loop" brought by the issue, Judge Timothy Reif of the Court of International Trade said in a May 26 opinion. In a saga reminiscent of the film Groundhog Day, according to Reif's opinion, the EBCP has been the subject of "intense litigation," prompting Reif to ask for an answer from Commerce for why it refuses to verify the customer self-certifications, leading to the application of adverse facts available for the subject goods relating to the EBCP.

CBP is investigating Vivaldi Commercial and Vivaldi Interiors over allegations that the companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on quartz surface products from China, the agency said in a May 10 notice it recently posted. CBP began the investigation in response to allegations filed by Cambria Company, represented by Luke Meisner of Schagrin Associates.

A set of domestic steel producers will not be allowed to intervene in six challenges to the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 tariff exclusions to steel importers, following a May 25 decision from the Court of International Trade. "Nevertheless," said Judge Miller Baker as he denied their motions to intervene, "the Court reiterates its willingness to entertain motions to appear as amici curiae."

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.

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).