The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department’s failure to verify data submitted by an Indian exporter of forged steel fittings during an antidumping duty investigation conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic means the agency should be ordered to go back and reexamine the exporter’s zero rate, the petitioners from that investigation said in a brief filed April 26 seeking a Court of International Trade remand (Bonney Forge Corporation et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03837).

The Commerce Department essentially “committed fraud” against a Chinese shrimp exporter that had been revoked from an antidumping duty order but, because of Commerce’s own misspelling that the agency refuses to correct, found itself years later participating in an administrative review and being assigned an AD duty cash deposit rate, the exporter said in a brief filed April 26 at the Court of International Trade (Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03947).

CBP can still collect unpaid antidumping duties on a customs bond despite waiting nearly eight years after the relevant entries liquidated before demanding payment, the Justice Department said in a brief filed April 23. Aegis Security Insurance Co., which acted as surety on 10 entries of fresh garlic from China that was deemed liquidated 2006, says the statute of limitations had expired on the bond by the time CBP billed Aegis for the full continuous bond amount, $50,000, in 2014. “Because a customs bond is a contract, the [Federal Circuit] has held that a cause of action to enforce its obligations accrues when the terms of the bond are breached,” DOJ said. “In this case, the terms of the bond at issue were not breached by Aegis until CBP made a demand for payment against Aegis and Aegis failed to pay the duties within the time required by law.”

The Department of Justice on April 23 filed a motion to dismiss Root Sciences' Court of International Trade challenge of CBP's seizure of a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine. DOJ says that CIT lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to CBP's seizure of goods, and the relevant federal district court is the proper venue to challenge seizures.

Cases brought in the Court of International Trade that seek to challenge denied protests over granted exclusions to the Section 301 tariffs may eventually result in refunds for duties paid on excluded products, Ted Murphy of Sidley Austin said in an April 26 blog post. CBP is now “making its way through the incredible number of post-summary corrections and protests that were filed claiming refunds of Section 301 duties based on approved exclusions,” he said. “While most clients have had most of their refund requests approved, a handful of requests have been denied by CBP with limited explanation. Following up on the denials has not always produced satisfying results. As a result, we are filling (and have been seeing other firms file) suits” at the CIT.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Target Corporation launched a case in the Court of International Trade challenging one of the court's own decisions to order the reliquidation of metal top ironing tables at a higher antidumping duty rate. In an April 23 complaint, Target claimed that CIT's order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision to uphold the order, to reliquidate the ironing tables at a higher 72.29% antidumping duty rate is illegal since the order came 90 days after the goods were liquidated by CBP.

Turkish steel importer Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret filed a lawsuit April 22 in the Court of International Trade, challenging CBP's denial of its refund request for Section 232 duties, claiming that its goods were granted exclusions. Borusan, along with the consignee of the imports Gulf Coast Express Pipeline (GCX), said it was granted exclusions for specialized X70 large diameter welded line pipe that retroactively applied to imports brought in from Turkey in 2018. Two exclusions were granted for the lined pipe for the construction of the GCX pipeline, so Borusan attempted to use the exclusions to retroactively obtain refunds for Section 232 duties paid but was denied by CBP.

Polyethylene terephthalate sheet exporter OCTAL, Inc. filed a motion April 21 with the Court of International Trade in support of the Department of Justice's move to voluntarily remand an antidumping duty investigation, but called for additional time to for the Commerce Department to reconsider the case. OCTAL says the standard 90-day period of remand is not long enough, arguing Commerce should reopen the record to obtain additional information on the central claim in the lawsuit.