The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should uphold CBP's finding that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, defendant-intervenor Hog Slat argued in a Jan. 20 reply brief at CIT. The trade court must reject the plaintiff's arguments that their tribar flooring imports are not under the scope of the orders since CBP's covered merchandise finding "reflected the typical analysis undertaken by Commerce with respect to questions of scope which, although not required of CBP, demonstrates the analytical reasonableness of CBP's approach," the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
Counterweights for mini excavators should be subject to Section 301 tariffs because they qualify as parts for "backhoes," the government argued in a Jan. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny plaintiff Norca Engineered Products' Nov. 3 motion for summary judgment and to find that the counterweights are backhoe parts and therefore not subject to a Section 301 exclusion (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT #21-00305).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion upheld CBP's evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Leco Supply. In a letter accompanying the decision, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Jan. 31 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Leco Supply v. United States, CIT # 21-00136).
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.
The government's motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the entries at issue have been liquidated would deprive importer Royal Brush Manufacturing of any judicial recourse and allow CBP's illegal liquidation of the entries, Royal Brush argued in a Jan. 23 reply brief. Arguing the case is moot because of the liquidations misconstrues the law and presumes incorrectly that Royal Brush’s interests are limited to the erroneous assessment of additional duties," the importer said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 opinion dismissed a case from J.D. Irving on the Commerce Department's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, because jurisdiction would have been available under Section 1581(c), "but for the decision" by parties involved to request a binational panel review of the AD review under the USMCA. The true nature of the case challenges Commerce's final results in the review and not the cash deposit instructions, the judge said.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 order sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on granular polytetrafluoroethylene from India. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that, on remand, Commerce must drop the 26.5% estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land by the State Industrial Development Corp. and reconsider the estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land from the Gujarat Industrial Development Corp.
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 23 brief. The decision is based on an "incorrect interpretation of" the statute, and the parties never presented the issue of whether the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1677e(d), lets Commerce use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse rate, the government claimed (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: