The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion ruled in a dispute over whether exporter Oman Fasteners should post bond or cash deposits to secure payment of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties in a case on the validity of the national security tariffs. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said that the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case brought by Garg Tube Export and Garb Tube Limited on the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. Previously in the case, Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's finding that a particular market situation existed in India for hot-rolled coil steel and its regression methodology applying a PMS adjustment. On remand and under "respectful protest," Commerce dropped the PMS finding and adjustment, leading Kelly to uphold the remand results.
Daniel Pickard, partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, was silent at an Oct. 19 preliminary conference at the International Trade Commission over allegations from Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), his former client while working at Wiley Rein, that he violated certain ethical considerations. ARC took to both the ITC and the Court of International Trade to argue that Pickard betrayed the company by releasing its business proprietary information to attorneys and non-attorney staff at his new firm, Buchanan, since he now represents parties with adverse interests to ARC (see 2210170084). ARC raised the issue right off the bat at the preliminary conference, but Pickard did not address the allegations, only carrying on with arguments pertaining to proving that imports of freight rail couplers and their parts from China and Mexico injured the domestic industry.
Court of International Trade Court Judge Gary S. Katzmann on Oct. 20 granted a motion to stay penalties for 30 days in a case concerning imported drug paraphernalia. Katzmann ruled against the government in a Sept. 21 opinion (see 2209210034).
The Commerce Department must revisit its countervailing duty rate calculations for the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act and its finding that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20. However, Judge Claire Kelly upheld the remaining points of contention in the case brought by BGH Edelstahl Siegen. including whether Commerce properly initiated the CVD investigation, the finding that the administrative record is complete, and "the determination that the provisions of the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act, the EEG and KWKG Reduced Surcharge Programs, the ETS Additional Free Emissions Allowances, and the CO2 Compensation Program are countervailable subsidies."
It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not stay a case led by PrimeSource Building Products pending resolution of another action at the appellate court, the U.S. said in an Oct. 17 reply brief, arguing a stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" PrimeSource's desired outcome of the separate matter. The "unjustifiable delay" that would stem from the stay would cause "inherent harm" to the government, so the stay should be denied, the U.S. said (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
A September Court of International Trade decision finding that the U.S. cannot seize or forfeit imports of federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal in Washington state may not be as applicable to other states as certain importers would like, trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Since the opinion rests heavily on the precise language of the Washington state law legalizing marijuana, the trade court's ruling will only make the most difference in states with a similar law, one attorney said.
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion again ruled it's legal for importer Keirton USA to possess and import its merchandise, deemed "drug paraphernalia" federally, into Washington state. Building on the Eteros decision at CIT that declared the same thing, Judge Claire Kelly said the state's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to find the term "authorization" applies to Washington state law.