No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
"Virtually every substantial issue" raised by plaintiffs in an antidumping duty challenge led by Ellwood City Forge Company still remains following a voluntary remand proceeding from the Commerce Department, the plaintiffs argued in a revised March 11 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In particular, Ellwood argued Commerce's remand left unaddressed the issue of Commerce's failure to conduct verification in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel end blocks from India (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00007).
A nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026, DOJ said in a brief filed March 8 at the Court of International Trade. DOJ argued that the probe's function falls within the definition of "chemical analysis" and that the sensor itself includes design features that meet plain language definitions of chemical analysis.
CBP's finding that Skyview Cabinet evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities from China was unsupported by evidence and based on hearsay, and improperly added full supply chain assessment requirements, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a March 10 complaint (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The Commerce Department's rejection of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' filing in an antidumping duty sunset review -- which resulted in the revocation of the nearly 40-year-old order on chloropicrin from China -- was a "marked abuse of discretion" given that the producers' lawyer was impaired with "medical and technical issues," plaintiff-appellants, led by Trinity Manufacturing, said in a March 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).
July 6 marks the fourth anniversary of the List 1 Section 301 tariffs' taking effect on Chinese imports, and the 1974 Trade Act requires their expiration after four years, “unless some conditions are met,” said David Olave, a Sandler Travis associate and trade policy adviser, on a recent podcast. “No unilateral 301 action that I know has made it through the four years, so we’re about to witness trade policy procedural history,” he said.
The Court of International Trade denied on March 15 importer Root Sciences' bid for reconsideration of a decision that CBP's seizure of drug paraphernalia precluded a deemed exclusion of the merchandise, removing the case from the trade court's jurisdiction. Root argued that the decision created a paradox, leaving the jurisdictional status of the case in limbo. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Root's motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court's reasoning on matters fully litigated."
The Court of International Trade in an order dated March 10 dropped its mask mandate for individuals seeking to enter the New York courthouse. The decision follows a change in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy. Unvaccinated individuals will still be subjected to COVID-19 screening, including an inquiry into recent COVID-19 exposure and a temperature check, the court said. No one feeling sick may enter the building regardless of vaccination status, the court added. It also said presiding judges may institute masking and other COVID-19 prevention steps. The measures took effect March 11.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, in a March 11 confidential order. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Claire Kelly announced her intention to release the public version of the opinion on March 21, giving litigants until March 18 to review any bracketed information (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).