The Court of International Trade on July 31 granted exporter Hindalco Industries' voluntary dismissal of its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India. Hindalco filed a complaint in the case in January, arguing that the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration. Counsel for Hindalco didn't respond to a request for comment (see 2501130074) (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 30 granted the government's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department had adequate industry support to launch the antidumping duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. However, the court said the motion is granted "to the limited extent that the United States’s response brief is due no later than" Aug. 4, noting that the reply brief is still due no later than Sept. 3 (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
Two monosodium glutamate (MSG) importers told the Court of International Trade in a July 30 complaint that the Commerce Department unlawfully subjected MSG entries from Malaysia that used Chinese glutamic acid to the antidumping duty order on MSG from China retroactively (CPF Legacy v. United States, CIT # 25-00149).
The U.S. responded July 25 to importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' remaining claims challenging the Commerce Department’s rejection of the importer’s Section 232 requests, saying a number of them had already been covered by the Court of International Trade's dismissal. It also defended Commerce's ability to deny exclusion requests for national security purposes (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 remanded the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Jindal Poly's affiliate questionnaire response as untimely in the countervailing duty administrative review on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India for the 2021 review period. Judge Mark Barnett held that the rejection of the submission was an "abuse of discretion," finding that the agency failed to adequately consider various facts, including the "early stage of the proceeding," the selection of Jindal for "individual examination only after requests for review of all other subject companies" were withdrawn and whether "accuracy consideration" outweighed the "burden on the agency."
All active judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 heard oral argument in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 11 judges peppered counsel for the government and the parties challenging the tariffs, which include five importers and 12 U.S. states, with questions about whether the statute authorizes tariffs at all; whether there are limits to that tariff authority, should it exist; and whether the major questions or non-delegation doctrines strip IEEPA of its ability to convey tariff authority (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. # 25-1812).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on July 29 signed off on importer Briggs & Stratton's dismissal of its case on CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer filed its notice of dismissal last month (see 2506270029). Briggs & Stratton brought the suit to argue that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015) Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).
In a July 25 complaint to the Court of International Trade, Chinese xanthan gum exporter Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) alleged the Commerce Department’s 10th antidumping duty review of its products wrongly assigned it partial adverse facts available for a sales date disagreement (Deosen Biochemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00145).
Defending a motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said again July 23 that fish oil importer BASF Corp.’s products should have been classified as “food preparations” and that the Court of International Trade defined “fish extracts” too broadly. The trade court failed to address several U.S. points raised during litigation, so the standard for reconsideration has been met, it claimed (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).