The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Aug. 9 from 6 p.m. to 12 a.m. ET, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.
Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).
The International Trade Commission last week stuck by its determination that the U.S. industry is materially injured by phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, issuing a remand predetermination at the Court of International Trade. Commissioner David Johanson dissented from the decision, incorporating his dissenting views he issued with the commission's initial injury finding and first remand decision (OCP S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The U.S. again said July 30 that “rough” butt-weld pipe fittings were distinct from “unfinished” ones, supporting a Commerce Department redetermination on remand (see 2505050031) (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
The Commerce Department correctly found that processors and producers of oil country tubular goods weren't double-counted in the agency's domestic production calculation underlying the antidumping duty investigations on OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 5, the government added that importers led by Tenaris Bay City failed to raise a host of arguments before Commerce they now attempt to bring before the appellate court (Tenaris Bay City v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 sent back the Commerce Department's 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's finding that the Korean government's provision of subsidized electricity is de facto specific, faulting the agency for grouping the steel industry with two unrelated industries to assess whether the industries predominantly used electricity. The judge also warned against countervailing the provision of electricity, which is of the type of general subsidy barred from being countervailed under the CVD statute. Restani also sent back the decision to countervail the allocation of additional carbon emissions credits under the Korean cap and trade program. Restani rejected the findings that the extra credits are a "financial contribution" and are de jure specific.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A group of exporters, led by Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum, filed a stipulation of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 in their case against the Commerce Department's administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China for the 2022 review period. The companies brought the case to contest Commerce's use of UNComtrade data as the benchmark for assessing the adequacy of remuneration for the provision of aluminum ingot. The exporters also challenged the use of adverse facts available in relation to the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum v. United States, CIT # 24-00231).
Solar cell importers Trina Solar and Astronergy dismissed three cases at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 challenging President Donald Trump's decision from his first administration to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained Trump's decision, finding that the president didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked the tariff exclusion (see 2311130031). Jonathan Fried, counsel for Trina and Astronergy, said in an email that the companies "decided to dismiss their actions rather than relitigate the issues" settled by the Federal Circuit (Trina Solar (U.S.) v. U.S, CIT #s 22-00306, -00321) (Astronergy Solar v. U.S., CIT # 22-00308).
CBP improperly classified importer Air Distribution USA's shisha molasses, also known as "hookah tobacco," as a type of "smoking tobacco" and erroneously subjected the shisha molasses to federal excise taxes on "pipe tobacco," Air Distribution argued in a complaint last month at the Court of International Trade (Air Distribution USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00063).