Court of International Trade

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 8-14:

All cedar shakes and shingles are exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on softwood lumber from Canada (A-122-857/C-122-858), not just certain categories, the Commerce Department said in a March 12 scope ruling. Despite circumvention concerns from domestic lumber producers, Commerce found no justification to apply the court-ordered exemption to some high-grade cedar shakes and shingles but not to lower grade products.

The Department of Justice declined to submit additional arguments in defense of President Donald Trump's decision to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to steel derivatives beyond its original argument in front of the Court of International Trade, guaranteeing that the court will overturn the steel derivatives tariffs but allowing for an appeal.

The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed a challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs' exclusion process, finding that the importer-specific exclusion process is constitutional. In the case, steel importer Thyssenkrupp Materials and its subsidiaries said that by excluding individual importers from the tariffs, the process violated the Constitution's uniformity clause by discriminating against steel and aluminum importers based on geography (see 2004230053). Thyssenkrupp also held that the exclusion process was inconsistent with presidential proclamations dictating how the exclusions should be conducted. Judges Claire Kelly, Gary Katzmann and Jane Restani in their March 10 opinion were unconvinced of both arguments and granted the government defense's motion to dismiss the case.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 1-7:

The Court of International Trade's recent decision denying first sale valuation for cookware importer Meyer Corp. likely won't lead to the end of first sale treatment for goods originating from non-market economies, said customs lawyers in interviews. Despite broader questions raised by CIT Senior Judge Thomas Aquilino, it's unlikely that courts will do away with first sale for non-market countries entirely, but the decision does highlight the burden of demonstrating eligibility for first sale, lawyers said.

Todd Owen, former executive assistant CBP commissioner who worked in the Office of Field Operations before retiring, said during a March 3 webinar that the trade community should expect to see a lot more traditional customs work over the next few years, such as missed descriptions, undervaluation, duty evasion and import safety. Owen, who is a senior trade adviser at Diaz Trade Law, also said during the webinar that he thinks stopping goods made with forced labor is going to continue to be a priority for the Biden administration. “I don’t see this going away,” he said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 22-28:

First sale treatment may not be applicable to transactions involving non-market economies, including China, Court of International Trade Senior Judge Thomas Aquilino said in a March 1 decision. In a ruling on cookware imported by Meyer from Thailand and China through a Chinese middleman, the trade court found the involvement of Chinese companies made it difficult to determine whether the transaction was at arm's length and undistorted by non-market influences, as required for first sale valuation. Though he stopped short of saying imports originating in non-market economies could never receive first sale valuation, he called on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to clarify.

Canadian textile company Tricots Liesse 1983 must pay its surety, Aegis Security Insurance, $768,916.53 along with legal fees for a customs bond payment that Aegis made on Tricots' behalf to cover unpaid duties on textile imports. Tricots must reimburse Aegis after Tricots failed to object to Aegis' motion for a quick ruling on the facts of the case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 26 summary judgment. While the bond payment amount is not under dispute, Judge Richard Eaton did not accept Aegis' quote for its legal fees and ordered the surety to provide additional evidence of how much it is owed in attorney's fees, costs and expenses. Aegis initially submitted attorney time sheets on Aegis letterhead, claiming over $92,000 in legal fees that the court deemed did not meet the evidentiary standard for reimbursement. The lawyer for Tricots withdrew from the case Sept. 23, 2020.