The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade shouldn't dismiss a lawsuit brought by MS Solar over the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions issued following an antidumping duty administrative review, MS Solar said in a March 2 brief. The court has repeatedly found it has jurisdiction for these claims under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, according to the brief, which also took issue with DOJ's claim that the action's true nature is to challenge the final ADD rate (MS Solar Investments v. U.S., CIT #21-00303).
The Court of International Trade failed to consider all the relevant statutory language, legislative history and facts when it ruled in three recent opinions that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs can be deducted from a respondent's U.S. price in antidumping duty calculations, Nippon Steel told the trade court in a motion for judgment Feb. 25. Nippon argued the tariffs should be considered remedial, not ordinary customs duties eligible for deductions (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases brought by California importer Mirror Metals in a series of three orders for lack of prosecution. All three cases were filed in February 2020 and concern CBP's assessment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on the company's various metal articles. Filed under Section 1581(a), the cases contested the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's denial of Mirror Metals' exclusion requests (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #20-00039, -00040, -00041). While the importer has two other nearly identical cases filed at CIT, it also has a case filed under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the BIS exclusion denials that the court has found to be the proper jurisdictional outlet. Most recently in that case, the trade court remanded the denials to BIS for further review (see 2111190056).
South Korean exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade March 2 to contest the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Dongkuk challenges Commerce's finding that the provision of carbon emission permits to mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel constituted a countervailable subsidy. The result of the review was a 0.56% CVD rate for Dongkuk, which participated in the review as a voluntary respondent (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00032).
Italian Exporter, US Importers Clear Up Oral Argument Over Lack of In-Person Verification in AD Case
Following oral argument over a question of whether a questionnaire submitted in lieu of verification constitutes verification in an antidumping matter, both the plaintiffs, led by Ellwod City Forge Co., and the defendant-intervenors, led by Metalcam, submitted follow-up briefs. Metalcam told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department acted within its discretion to issue the questionnaire instead of on-site verification. Meanwhile, Ellwood responded to the oral argument by arguing that it exhausted administrative remedies on this question, but that even if it did not, this should not bar consideration of the legal claims (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
A recent Court of International Trade opinion left prior court precedent on the question of what constitutes a substantial transformation "dead, or on life support," an analysis from Neville Peterson said. The result is that importers who have been told by CBP that the country of origin of their goods is the country of origin of the goods' major inputs or essential components will likely seek reconsideration of those rulings, seeking refunds on Section 301 China tariffs in particular, the firm said.
A host of law firms have said that they are dropping Russian clients and reviewing work related to Russia to comply with the spate of global sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, per reports from Reuters and Law.com. Firms such as White & Case, Baker McKenzie, and Morgan Lewis & Bockius -- all with offices in Russia -- are working to gauge sanctions exposure due to their dealings with Russian clients and flush the exposure from their business.