The Court of International Trade granted Best Mattresses International Company and Rose Lion Furniture International Company an indefinite injunction against the liquidation of their mattress entries in a Feb. 14 order. The injunction bid faced opposition from the DOJ, which argued that the injunction should only run until April 30, 2022 -- the end date of the first administrative review of the AD order in question. The companies are plaintiffs in a challenge to the AD order on mattresses from Cambodia. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the injunction was justified since the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm and success on the merits of the case.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the entry of appearance for plaintiff-appellee PT. Kenertec Power System's counsel was not in compliance with the court's rules. In particular, the court said that the contact information for Daniel Robert Wilson and Kang Woo Lee of Arnold & Porter "does not match the information associated with the user's account." Up-to-date contact information is needed for the two attorneys, the court said. The case is an appeal by the Wind Tower Trade Coalition over a Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's decision to ultimately find no countervailable subsidization in a countervailing duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from Indonesia (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1408).
Challenge to Lack of Section 301 Refund Not an Entry-Specific Matter, Importers Tell Federal Circuit
A CBP protest was not needed to establish jurisdiction in two companies' challenge to CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion since the challenge is not an entry-specific matter, the companies, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel, said in a Feb. 7 brief. Replying to the U.S.'s arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff-appellants said that their challenge has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction provision, since the action relates to CBP's imposition of the requirements of an "inapt statute" to all the entries excluded from tariff lists 2 and 3 (ARP Materials Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 8 consolidated two cases filed by Incase Design Group. The order follows a motion by Incase to combine the cases because it would "promote administrative and judicial efficiency." Both cases involve the same product and are being considered by the same judge. They also concern the same underlying issue: whether "the proper classification of sports armband cell phone holders" is under subheading 4202.99.90 as "... containers ... of sheeting of plastics ... ," dutiable at 20%, or under subheading 3926.90.99 as "other articles of plastics ..., ," dutiable at 5.3%. Judge Stephen Vaden granted Incase's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." The combined cases proceed as number 16-00267.
The Commerce Department excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings because the Court of International Trade left no alternative, Commerce said in a Feb. 7 brief. Responding to U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions arguments in a reply brief at CIT, Commerce said that even though the court initially agreed that the plain scope language included Star Pipe's flanges in the AD order, it said this was insufficient to include the flanges (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).
The Commerce Department stuck with its application of adverse facts available over certain countervailing duty respondents' alleged use of China's Exporter Buyer's Credit Program in its Feb. 9 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, responding to a series of questions the court wanted answered on why the agency's lack of certain information from the Chinese government precluded its ability to verify that the respondents didn't use the program (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00113).
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit probed the limits of the president's authority when implementing Section 232 national security tariffs during Feb. 9 oral arguments in a case representing a broad challenge to presidential action under the statute. Questions revolved around what elements, if any, of the process was judicially reviewable, with the plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, arguing that the report issued by the commerce secretary to the president, which permits the president to impose the tariffs, is a final agency action and thus reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (USP Holdings, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a challenge to the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam after the plaintiffs, led by the Hung Vuong Corporation, moved to voluntarily toss the appeal. The Court of International Trade had upheld Commerce's use of AFA based on Hung Vuong's failure to retain source documents on feed consumption, production records and sales correspondence, and the respondent's failure to report factors of production data on a control number-specific basis (see 2110130031) (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1261).