The Court of International Trade in a pair of administrative orders extended both the preliminary injunction enjoining liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the massive Section 301 litigation and the order telling the U.S. to refund duties should the Section 301 plaintiffs be successful in unassigned Section 301 challenges. In July 2021, the court temporarily suspended liquidation of the subject imports. Judge Mark Barnett extended this order via an administrative order to unassigned Section 301 cases.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
CBP misclassified imports of dried botanicals that are painted, dyed or glittered, importer Second Nature Designs argued in a Sept. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The botanicals were liquidated under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0604.90.6000, dutiable at 7%, though Second Nature believes they should be classified under subheading 0604.90.3000, free of duty, the complaint said (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT #18-00131).
The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision calling the use of a statistical test underpinning the analysis into question, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 26 motion. SeAH said the opinion also should be revisited over its move to uphold Commerce's inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as general and administrative (G&A) expenses (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondent Asia Pacific Fibers (APF) failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in its challenge of the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Given this failure, the U.S. had no chance to consider and address the issues raised by the respondent for the first time, the brief said. Further, the U.S. defended Commerce's use of total adverse facts available over APF's failure to supply "critical" supplementary information over the respondent's cost and sales data (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT #22-00007).
Importer Maple Leaf Marketing (MLM) filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 23 seeking duty-free treatment for its boronized steel tubing that was made in the U.S., exported to Canada for alteration, then brought back into the U.S. MLM said that its imports qualify for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9802.00.50. The importer further sought to clear its goods of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties since the products are of U.S. origin (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT #20-03839).
Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
An importer’s contention that the date of discovery for statute of limitations purposes is the date the allegations of misconduct were submitted to CBP “exhibits a profound misunderstanding” of how government investigations work and of the concept of fraud, DOJ said in a Sept. 22 brief opposing the importer’s request for rehearing (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).