The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A lawsuit by Home Depot USA over the president's authority to expand Section 232 national security tariffs beyond procedural deadlines filed at the Court of International Trade was assigned to a three-judge panel, in a Feb. 2 order. The judges -- Timothy Stanceu, Jennifer Choe-Groves and M. Miller Baker -- ruled on the original April 2021 decision to strike down the expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049). (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014).
The Court of International Trade upheld for the second time the Commerce Department's decision that no benefit was conferred to South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity. In a decision written on Jan. 21 but made public on Feb. 1, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's decision after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation. Barnett said Commerce has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns.
The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request to re-review its decision to deny 15 exclusion requests from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, in a Feb. 1 order. Plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania had consented to the request, even though Commerce's offer only covered 15 of the 54 total exclusion denial challenges made by NLMK. In its order, CIT did shorten the amount of time Commerce has to review the 15 cases from 150 days, as requested by the agency, to 106 days.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Proposed defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation will appeal a December 2021 Court of International Trade decision that denied the company the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Feb. 1 notice of appeal. In the decision, the trade court said that U.S. Steel cannot intervene since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome and that any harm the company would experience as a result of a Section 232 exclusion being granted would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products (see 2112060021) (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
Plaintiffs who challenged CBP's liquidation of their entries subject to a pending Enforce and Protect Act investigation are considering a challenge to the Commerce Department's final decision in a related scope ruling, they said in a Jan. 31 status report at the Court of International Trade. The scope inquiry found Vietnam Finewood and Far East American's hardwood plywood products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China (see 2201280051). Subsequently, and after the entries liquidated, CBP said that FEA and a third plaintiff, InterGlobal Forest, evaded the orders. The two now have 30 days to request a review of the EAPA determination. The government, joining the plaintiffs on the status report, says a resolution of this review is expected in June, and so the next status report should be set for a time after this review. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, said that the next status report should come in the next 30 days "after Finewood and FEA have fully considered their appeal against Commerce’s scope determination," the status reports said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00155).
The Commerce Department reasonably found that antidumping respondents Aelous Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co. were de facto controlled by the Chinese government, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 24 reply brief submitted at the Court of International Trade. Aeolus and GTC argued that in cases where the Chinese government is found to only own a minority of a company, Commerce cannot just rely on only one fact of the de facto control analysis. DOJ countered by saying that the plaintiffs mischaracterize Commerce' separate rate evaluations and that all factors were considered in establishing that the pair failed to rebut the presumption of government control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00100).
The Court of International Trade sent an antidumping case back to the Commerce Department with instructions to perform verification of the respondent's information or respond to the arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by the Bonney Forge Corporation. Commerce originally opted not to conduct verification in India due to COVID-19, issuing an additional questionnaire instead. The plaintiffs asked the agency to conduct a virtual verification, to which Commerce didn't reply. Judge Stephen Vaden ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, as Commerce must reply to all arguments made in good faith, or explain why it can't. Vaden also said that if Commerce finds that verification remains impossible, it should explain why senior DOJ and Cabinet officials can travel to India, but it is not safe for bureaucrats with "statutory responsibilities to do the same, even if only virtually."
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.