The government's lawsuit seeking to collect antidumping duties on imports of canned mushrooms from China brought in between 2001 and 2002 suffers from serious legal shortcomings, surety American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) said in a May 14 reply brief in the Court of International Trade. Arguing that the government's claims are precluded under res judicataand stare decisis , barred under the statute of limitations and based on untimely and legally void reliquidations, the surety wants the court to rule on the case and grant it the costs associated with litigation. "It defies logic that bills issued ten (10) years later for the same set of entries should be more recoverable than the bills issued in a far shorter time frame," the surety said.

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

The Department of Justice defended CBP's classification of five different categories of automobile parts in a May 13 reply brief further supporting its cross-motion for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade. The classification case involves 28 products from Jing Mei Automotive (USA), including: 1) interior trim, 2) door handles, 3) exterior trim, 4) mirror scalps and 5) emblems or wheel trim parts. After agreeing with Jing Mei on the proper classification for two side mirror scalp types and two plastic emblems, DOJ now asserts that the remaining parts under consideration are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 39 while Jing Mei argues for Chapter 87.

The Court of International Trade is considering staying two antidumping cases until a related question has concluded litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in a May 13 letter. In the Federal Circuit, a particular market situation (PMS) finding for certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea is being challenged and could be determined to be directly relevant to exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s cases in CIT (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 19-00086 and # 20-00150). The Department of Justice broached the idea of a stay until the Federal Circuit case, brought by Nexteel Co., is settled in another SeAH challenge of the same Commerce Department determination (see 2105120028). Responses in both SeAH cases to the question of a stay are due by May 17.

Chinese tire exporters argued against the Commerce Department's choice to only use one mandatory respondent in an antidumping case on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, filing opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 11. Exporters and appellants ITG Voma Corporation, Suton Tire Resources, YC Rubber Co. and Mayrun Tyre submitted two briefs in the appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion that determined that the statute allows for Commerce to select only one respondent. The exporters argue this is a misinterpretation of the law, citing the language of the governing statute, which includes the plural terms "exporters" or "producers."

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

A domestic producer initiated a challenge to the Commerce Department's countervailing duty determination on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco, in the Court of International Trade, arguing that the agency failed to properly consider four subsidy programs from the Moroccan government (GOM). In a May 12 complaint, The Mosaic Co., said it wants the court to grant relief on a slew of mistakes made by Commerce in the investigation, including its determination that value-added tax exemptions, the provision of the phosphogypsum waste disposal program and VAT refunds did not constitute benefits to the mandatory respondent in the CVD investigation.

The Court of International Trade sustained remand results in an antidumping investigation of whether a sale of steel flanges from Indian exporter Chandan Steel Limited should be excluded from its home market sales database when determining its antidumping duty margin, in a May 13 opinion. The Coalition of American Flange Producers, petitioners in the investigation, argued that Commerce had improperly come to the conclusion to exclude one sale from Chandan's home market database because Commerce failed to show that Chandan knew its sales were for export. In deciding if Chandan knew of its shipment's destination, Commerce considered three pieces of evidence: 1) the export quality packaging provision of the shipment, 2) Chandan's treatment of the shipment's logo and 3) the final payment and delivery terms of the sale. In all three cases, the court upheld Commerce's rationale for finding that all the evidence shows Chandan intended to export its steel flange shipment. For instance, the agency found that the logo on the shipment was consistent with goods sent to foreign markets "because sales to Indian customers and other customers abroad generally had different markings."

The Commerce Department failed to substantiate the quantity of fish meal and fish oil byproducts when granting a byproduct offset in a remand of an antidumping case, the defendant intervenor, the Catfish Farmers of America, argued in the Court of International Trade. Opposing remand results in a May 11 filing in CIT, CFA said Commerce's decision to flip its byproduct offset ruling on plaintiff NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s fish meal and fish oil products was contrary to agency practice and the law. The decision to grant the offset failed to “substantiate” byproduct production and used “unreasonable surrogates to value NTSF's fish meal and oil by-product offsets,” CFA argued. NTSF agreed with the remand results in its own comments.

Since CBP seized a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine and did not subject it to deemed exclusion from entry, a case challenging the seizure does not have jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a May 12 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Importer Root Sciences argues that since it received a notice of seizure after the date of deemed exclusion, its shipment was deemed excluded from entry and thus warranting of jurisdiction in CIT, but citing past court precedent, DOJ said that notice of seizure is not the date of seizure, declaring that "a seizure necessarily occurs prior to the date on which Customs issues the notice of seizure," (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).