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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 22 issued its mandate in a pair of cases seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions. In the suits, the appellate court sustained the dismissal of the cases for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that a protest must have been filed with CBP to properly effectuate relief. The Court of International Trade initially said jurisdiction was not to be had under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since the court would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) had a protest been filed (see 2209060035). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the true nature of the suits contests CBP's assessment of the duties and not the U.S. Trade Representative's decision to grant an exclusion, even though the exclusions were granted after the deadline for filing a protest had lapsed (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2176) (The Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2177).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 19 invited the U.S. to respond to a petition from solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, to reconsider the case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. The court asked for a response by Feb. 2 (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The Commerce Department repeatedly relied on an analysis in several administrative reviews that the courts had already struck down, an exporter of Indian carbon steel welded pipe said in a Jan.19 brief responding to comments made by DOJ and domestic petitioners regarding its own motion for summary judgment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

An importer’s duty drawback claim was not automatically liquidated after one year because that importer failed to file the necessary paperwork, as the entries its drawback claim was made on had liquidated but not “become final,” the U.S. said Jan. 19 in response to comments on its motion for summary judgment (Performance Additives v. U.S., CIT # 22-00044).

An antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner on Jan. 19 filed its opening brief in an appeal of the Court of International Trade’s September ruling that the Commerce Department correctly excluded an importer’s shelf dividers from AD/CVD orders on flexible magnets from China (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).

CBP illegally liquidated an importer’s entries before litigation over the entries’ antidumping duty rate had finished, that importer alleged in the Court of International Trade (Acquisition 362 dba Strategic Import Supply vs. U.S., CIT 24-00011).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 19 granted a joint motion that results in duty-free treatment for swimsuits reimported by SGS Sports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.20. The ruling avoids a bench trial over whether the swimsuits qualify for the subheading as U.S. goods returned to the country.

CBP released a remand determination Jan. 18 reaffirming that three importers -- Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave -- attempted to evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese glycine (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The Commerce Department’s use of Turkish lira, not U.S. dollars, to calculate home market sales was contrary to record evidence that a Turkish exporter used the latter currency in its price negotiations, invoices and records, the exporter said on appeal (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).