Importer Generac Power Systems brought on Dec. 20 two complaints to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP, in 2020, applied Section 301 tariffs to multiple of its entries despite excluding “substantially identical” merchandise (Generac Power Systems v. U.S., CIT # 20-03882, -03920).
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
Antidumping duty and countervailing duty petitioners the U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition and United Steelworkers argued that the International Trade Commission incorrectly concluded that aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam didn't injure the U.S. industry (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00209).
In a 18,700-word opposition brief, the U.S. attempted to derail a full-throttle attack brought by importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato against the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury finding for freight rail couplers from China (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
Tire exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations filed a 10-count complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 23, challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 upheld the Commerce Department's finding in the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program is not de facto specific. The program exempts from a fee gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency reasonably used facts otherwise available to find a lack of specificity after the German government couldn't provide certain information on the program because it doesn't administer the program and would violate trade secret laws by collecting the information.
President-elect Donald Trump announced his plans to nominate Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden to be deputy secretary of agriculture. Vaden joined the court in 2020 after working in Trump's first administration as USDA's general counsel. Posting the announcement on Truth Social, the president-elect said that at the agency, Vaden "relocated and reorganized the Agencies that comprise the Department to better serve Rural America, and engaged in substantial regulatory reform."
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in changing the date of sale for respondent Toyo Kohan Co.'s U.S. transactions in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on diffusion-annealed nickel-plated flat-rolled steel from Japan, the company said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said Commerce "did not justify" its change from using the date of invoice as the date of sale to using the shipment date from Japan as the date of sale (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).
In comments on remand results, plaintiffs led by tire exporter YC Rubber said that the Commerce Department based its respondent selection for a 2016-2017 antidumping duty review on only a subset of mandatory respondent Kenda Rubber’s entries even though its practice requires consideration of all entries (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).