The Court of International Trade remanded a case brought by Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico in a March 21 opinion made public March 30 concerning the AD investigation into fabricated structural steel from Mexico. Judge Claire Kelly sent back elements of the Commerce Department's decision to use mandatory respondent Corey S.A.'s home market sales to explain why the agency rejected BSM's data for insufficient volume but relied on Corey's when it had less data and to explain whether a particular sale was contracted for during the investigation period.
The Court of International Trade on March 28 upheld the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on wood mouldings and millwork from China. Judge Leo Gordon said that Chinese exporter Jeld-Wen failed to successfully argue that laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is not included in the domestic like product for wood mouldings and millwork and that other economic factors, and not imports, caused the domestic injury. On the latter point, Gordon said that Jeld-Wen needed to show that its conclusion is the only one to be drawn from the record and not the preferred one -- something the plaintiff failed to do.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department unlawfully decided not to initiate a changed circumstances review following GreenFirst Forest Productions' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's lumber mills, GreenFirst said in a March 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. GreenFirst said that Commerce misapplied agency practice in denying the CCR since RYAM's rate was not based on any subsidies it received. The agency also violated Congress' directive to investigate changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review when it declined to embark on the CCR (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a March 28 filing at the Court of International Trade so it can reconsider its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The remand is appropriate given Commerce's "evolving practice" on the topic, the brief said. In a separate countervailing duty investigation, Commerce found that it was able to verify that a respondent's U.S. customers did not use the program without certain information requested from the Chinese government (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).
The Court of International Trade in a March 28 decision denied mattress importer Ashley Furniture Industries and its foreign manufacturers a request for an open-ended injunction in an antidumping duty case. Judge Timothy Reif said that the plaintiffs failed to show that the threat of liquidation posed immediate irreparable harm and that they clearly had a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case. The decision cuts against two other CIT decisions granting an open-ended injunction.
The Court of International Trade ruled that CBP properly classified eight models of gloves imported by Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. as knit textile gloves, rather than as gloves made of plastics. In a March 25 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu sided with the government and ruled CBP correctly classified the gloves imported from China and South Korea in 2015 and correctly denied Magid's 2016 CBP protest (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT #16-00150).
The Court of International Trade dismissed a case brought by the U.S. government seeking the collection of over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In a March 28 opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted Katana's motion to dismiss based on an expired statute of limitations. The judge ruled that Katana was allowed to revoke an earlier statute of limitations waiver and concluded that without the waiver, any action by CBP is barred by the passage of time (United States v. Katana Racing Inc., d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT #19-00125).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. declined to take up a key case over the president's power under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. Rejecting a petition from importer Transpacific Steel and several other companies, SCOTUS in effect upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said that the president can increase tariffs under Section 232 beyond procedural time limits.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: