Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).
The Commerce Department incorrectly found Kumar Industries was affiliated with one of its home market buyers and one of its input suppliers in an antidumping duty review, and shouldn't have applied adverse facts available based on the lack of information provided by Kumar because the information wasn't requested, Kumar told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 complaint (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT #21-00622).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP failed to require that a company accused of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties provide adequate public summaries of its confidential information, and the agency also failed to properly review the administrative record, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 reply to briefs submitted by the Justice Department and defendant-intervenors MSeafood Corp. and Minh Phu Seafood (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).
The Commerce Department can calculate the separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Jan. 10. Upholding the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said the separate rates in the past AD reviews trended upward, justifying the 41.025% dumping rate for the separate rate respondents.
The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't strike down President Donald Trump's extension of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines since the tariffs had a positive impact on the U.S. industry, The American Steel Nail Coalition said in Jan. 10 proposed amicus brief. The coalition asked the court for leave to file the amicus brief in a bid to broaden the defense of the president's tariff action. The proposed amicus further said that this issue has already been decided following the Federal Circuit's decision in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The Court of International Trade granted CBP's voluntary motion for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation over magnesia alumina carbon bricks, in which Fedmet Resources was found to have skirted the order on magnesia carbon bricks from China. CBP requested the voluntary remand, with the consent of Fedmet, to go over key issues raised by the plaintiff, including scope-related and due process arguments (see 2201060035). CBP said it would review the administrative record and potentially provide public versions of certain confidential documents discussed in Fedmet's briefs, possibly alleviating one of the plaintiff's due process concerns by also giving it a chance to provide rebuttal information (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).
The Commerce Department was wrong to allow an antidumping duty respondent's net hedging-related gains to offset its cost of manufacturing in an AD investigation, the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 7 complaint. Commerce's finding that the respondent's hedging gains are "associated" with its purchases of aluminum is insufficient because the record also shows that the hedging contracts are associated with its sales of finished goods, the complaint said (The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00618).
The Court of International Trade, in a Jan. 7 letter to litigants in an antidumping duty case, asked the parties to consult on whether oral argument should be held on issues not currently part of ongoing appeals of key Section 232 questions. The case, brought by respondent and Turkish steel company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi, concerns the Commerce Department's refusal to grant a full duty drawback adjustment and a deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from the company's U.S. price (see 2112300044) (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00140). While the Section 232 issue is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097, Judge Jane Restani asked the parties to figure out if litigation can continue without the Section 232 question involved. Restani also pointed to the current petition to the Supreme Court over the validity of some Section 232 tariffs in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S.