Judge Stephen Vaden never sought his nomination to the Court of International Trade. Rather, during a trip to San Francisco while serving as general counsel to USDA, he got an intriguing phone call. Using his deductive powers, Vaden knew the call could only have originated from one place: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Walking on the streets of San Francisco, he waited until he could slip back into his hotel to take the call, because who takes a call from the White House on the street?
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
US Reply Makes It 'Crystal Clear' That Commerce Illegally Denied Section 232 Exclusions, NLMK Argues
The U.S. made it "crystal clear" that "no decision-maker could have reasonably" found that the U.S. industry made certain steel slabs in enough quantity to warrant rejecting steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's requests for Section 232 tariff exclusions, NLMK argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ argued that the Commerce Department's regulations on quality criterion exclude the consideration of slab size when determining if there's enough capacity to make the merchandise in question in the U.S. NLMK said that argument contradicts the language of the regulation itself and is "nonsense on its face" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
CBP illegally collected duties on bifacial solar panels after the Court of International Trade struck down the Trump administration's revocation of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, importer Canadian Solar (USA) argued in a complaint at CIT. Given that the trade court found the tariff revocation illegal, CBP no longer can require the importers to pay the safeguard tariff on bifacial solar panels, the brief said. The duties "are substantial and impose a continuing financial burden," Canadian Solar argued (Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00295).
The Commerce Department in Oct. 7 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade dropped its use of adverse facts available pertaining to the use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for one respondent in a countervailing duty review but not the other mandatory respondent. Commerce found that JA Solar Co., provided enough data to fill gaps left by the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information to prove that its U.S. customers did not benefit from the EBCP while Risen Energy Co. did not (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03912).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 6 notice dismissed a customs case filed by Grobest Global Service over frozen tilapia fillets entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.0000. The importer filed the case to contest CBP's assessment of 10% Section 301 duties on the fillets, arguing that the entries qualify for an exclusion from the duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. Grobest filed a notice of dismissal without an explanation (Grobest Global Service v. United States, CIT #20-03827).
Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a case regarding the constructed value calculation in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, according to an Oct. 6 notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade in August found the Commerce Department justified its switch on remand between surrogate companies, despite calls from the exporter under review to use a different company (see 2208090008) (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT #15-00214).
The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).