The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to the over 3,600 lawsuits challenging Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs covering over $200 billion in goods, finding that the U.S. Trade Representative had the authority to impose the tariffs. In the highly-anticipated opinion, the court ruled against the plaintiffs' argument that the USTR could not impose Section 301 tariffs because the government was responding to retaliatory tariffs from China.
The Court of International Trade remanded several elements of a case brought by Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico, in a March 21 opinion made public March 30 concerning the antidumping investigation into fabricated structural steel from Mexico covering entries in 2018. Judge Claire Kelly sent back elements of the Commerce Department's decision to use mandatory respondent Corey S.A.'s home market sales to explain why the agency rejected BSM's data for insufficient volume but relied on Corey's when it had less data, and to explain whether a particular sale was contracted for during the investigation period.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Taiwanese corrosion-resistant steel products exporters Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Prospeity Tieh signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty matter at the Court of International Trade. On remand, Commerce reversed its decision to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Propserity Tieh Enterprise Co., in a bid to bring its stance in line with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "It is our position that the Department’s decision on the collapsing issue made in the Remand Results is in line with the [Federal Circuit's] decision," Yieh Phui's comments said (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00138).
Italian pasta exporters La Molisana and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani have not provided "compelling reasons" for the Commerce Department to part with its "longstanding" and "reasonable" practice for reporting the protein content of pasta in an antidumping case, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a March 28 brief. Rather, the relevant statute, past agency practice and case law all show that Commerce properly based its product-matching criteria on physical characteristics. In doing so, the agency said it legally derived the pasta's protein content -- a physical characteristic -- from the nutrition information on the packaging label (La Molisana v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00291).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches, agreeing with CBP's preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, in a March 30 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's opinion, Judges Kimberly Moore, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna said that the tuna pouches were "not minced" and "in oil," prompting their placement under subheading 1604.14.10.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Washington-based importer Keirton USA isn't permitted to import drug paraphernalia since Washington state law doesn't expressly authorize the possession of such items, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a March 28 cross-motion for judgment. If the state's current laws did authorize possession of drug paraphernalia, then the mere absence of criminal liability -- the situation in Washington -- would consume the whole statute federally outlawing possession of drug paraphernalia, DOJ said (Keirton USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00452).
The Court of International Trade on March 28 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on wood mouldings and millwork from China. Judge Leo Gordon said that Chinese exporter Jeld-Wen failed to successfully argue that laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is not included in the domestic like product for wood mouldings and millwork and that other economic factors, and not imports, caused the domestic injury. On the latter point, Gordon said that Jeld-Wen needed to show that its conclusion is the only one to be drawn from the record and not the preferred one -- something the plaintiff failed to do.
The Court of International Trade remanded a case brought by Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico in a March 21 opinion made public March 30 concerning the AD investigation into fabricated structural steel from Mexico. Judge Claire Kelly sent back elements of the Commerce Department's decision to use mandatory respondent Corey S.A.'s home market sales to explain why the agency rejected BSM's data for insufficient volume but relied on Corey's when it had less data and to explain whether a particular sale was contracted for during the investigation period.