The International Trade Commission improperly found that the U.S. industry was injured by shrimp imports and not by "conditions of competition unrelated to imports," a trade group for Indian shrimp exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 complaint. The trade group, the Seafood Exporters Association of India, also alleged that cooked frozen shrimp products "must be considered a separate like product distinct from uncooked frozen shrimp products" (Seafood Exporters Association of India v. United States, CIT # 25-00031).
Importer Outokumpu Stainless Steel brought a Feb. 20 complaint to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP had wrongly failed to correct the country of origin designated on 173 of its entries, resulting in the importer being assessed Section 232 tariffs (Outokumpu Stainless USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00047).
Eteros has not shown good cause for an expedited scheduling order in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade in a case on imports of marijuana paraphernalia, the U.S. told the trade court on Feb. 24. The government also said it's likely that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the matter, indicating that it soon will file a motion to dismiss the case (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Steel importer Seneca Foods Corp. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 to overturn the Commerce Department's rejection of its Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests, claiming its approach to exclusion requests "sought to ensure that the President's aims" in imposing the tariffs "would be fully realized." Seneca said the fact that U.S. Steel Corp., which objected to Seneca's requests, "declined to supply the very same volumes for which Seneca sought exclusions should be dispositive" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).
The Court of International Trade upheld on Feb. 25 the Commerce Department's inclusion of Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce was entirely in line when it considered a prior scope ruling asked for by Precision and concluded that the products at issue in the prior scope ruling were identical to the products considered in the subsequent scope case.
Responding to a petitioner (see 2412300009), the U.S. said Feb. 21 that two mandatory respondents in a countervailing duty review of chlorinated isoscyanurates from China hadn’t earned an adverse inference for failing to provide the Commerce Department land-use contracts that would show they hadn’t been granted land for less-than-adequate remuneration (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).
U.S. activated carbon producers Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly accepted an antidumping duty order administrative review mandatory respondent’s allegation of a ministerial error. The allegation actually concerned “a methodological issue, not a ministerial issue,” they said (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. United States, CIT # 25-00028).
The Commerce Department failed to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty review respondent PT Bahari Makmur Sejati in the AD investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner also challenged the agency's surrogate company pick for valuing home market profit and expense ratios and "allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone" (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00027).
Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).