The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are outside the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, DOJ said in a March 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Reflection's window wall systems aren't dependent on other systems and are inserted between slabs to cover an aperture from floor to ceiling, making the goods distinct from curtain wall units and thus "finished goods kits" that qualify for the finished goods kits scope exclusion (Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT #21-00253).
Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s antidumping duty case is an "excellent candidate for resolution via mediation," it told the Court of International Trade in a March 4 motion. Nagase's challenges the Commerce Department's calculation of its cost of production and an alleged error in the assessment rate in Commerce's liquidation instructions to CBP under the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
CIT Ruling Over Alleged Untimely Filed Protests Leads to 'Nonsensical' Practice, Importer Tells CAFC
The Court of International Trade erred when it found that importer Strategic Import Supply's protests were untimely filed, the tire importer said in its March 4 opening argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In fact, SIS should not have had to file the protest in the first place, since the U.S. should have provided the necessary refunds for overpaid countervailing duties without any other filings from SIS, the company said. The result of the trade court's ruling is a practice both "nonsensical" and unsupported by the statute's language (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade shouldn't dismiss a lawsuit brought by MS Solar over the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions issued following an antidumping duty administrative review, MS Solar said in a March 2 brief. The court has repeatedly found it has jurisdiction for these claims under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, according to the brief, which also took issue with DOJ's claim that the action's true nature is to challenge the final ADD rate (MS Solar Investments v. U.S., CIT #21-00303).
The Court of International Trade failed to consider all the relevant statutory language, legislative history and facts when it ruled in three recent opinions that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs can be deducted from a respondent's U.S. price in antidumping duty calculations, Nippon Steel told the trade court in a motion for judgment Feb. 25. Nippon argued the tariffs should be considered remedial, not ordinary customs duties eligible for deductions (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases brought by California importer Mirror Metals in a series of three orders for lack of prosecution. All three cases were filed in February 2020 and concern CBP's assessment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on the company's various metal articles. Filed under Section 1581(a), the cases contested the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's denial of Mirror Metals' exclusion requests (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #20-00039, -00040, -00041). While the importer has two other nearly identical cases filed at CIT, it also has a case filed under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the BIS exclusion denials that the court has found to be the proper jurisdictional outlet. Most recently in that case, the trade court remanded the denials to BIS for further review (see 2111190056).
South Korean exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade March 2 to contest the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Dongkuk challenges Commerce's finding that the provision of carbon emission permits to mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel constituted a countervailable subsidy. The result of the review was a 0.56% CVD rate for Dongkuk, which participated in the review as a voluntary respondent (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00032).