Court of International Trade activity

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company and the Department of Justice will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the petitioner and DOJ said in two Nov. 15 notices of appeal. In the case, CIT found that the Commerce Department cannot make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. On remand, Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment but continued to find that a PMS existed in Thailand (see 2106010026). The case is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

CBP erred in its classification of importer Alpi International's stress toys, since the agency's classification decision cut against its practice regarding the same toys for nearly 30 years, Alpi argued in its Nov. 12 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Alpi International, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00064). Since 1993, Alpi imported Squeezies stress toys under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.90, which provides for toys. This changed in November 2019, however, when CBP then changed its classification decision, instead liquidating the stress toys under HTS subheading 3926.40.0090. CBP said that the toys fit under this subheading since they are not shaped like a ball and ornamental plastic statuettes. Alpi argued that the toys are more accurately described under its preferred HTS subheading and that CBP failed to give the toys the disputed classification throughout the years it was being imported. As early as July 2018, CBP examined the toys and came up with the decision that they should be classified under subheading 9503.00.0090, the complaint said. Lastly, CBP violated its past practice by failing to classify the toys under Alpi's preferred classification, the company said.

The International Trade Commission's finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry is not based on substantial evidence and should be remanded, exporter Adisseo Espana and its U.S. subsidiary argued in a Nov. 12 complaint to the Court of International Trade. In finding domestic industry harm, the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence," Adisseo said (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 ruled against President Donald Trump's decision to revoke an exclusion for bifacial panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells. The trade court ruled his proclamation revoking the exclusion, issued in the midst of litigation over a similar action previously taken by the U.S. Trade Representative, was a "clear misconstruction" of the law and amounted to action outside the president's authority. The court said that the law only permits the president to make "trade-liberalizing modifications" to existing safeguards.

A key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day deadline for action laid out in the statute is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Transpacific Steel, Borusan Mannesmann and The Jordan International Company filed a petition Nov. 12 in an attempt to get the high court to side with the original Court of International Trade decision, which held that the president may not make such adjustments.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Strategic Import Supply will appeal an April Court of International Trade ruling that found that the 180-day deadline for CBP protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from the Commerce Department (see 2104210066). Per a Nov. 11 notice of appeal, Stragetic Import Supply will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer challenged CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Stephen Vaden dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 180-day protest deadline is not extended even after Commerce amended the rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

Importer Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, contesting what is the proper classification for its aluminum fuel pump mounts. Hongteo is seeking a more favorable HTS subheading that would lower the duty rate for the mounts and remove the Section 301 China tariff liability from the imports. The entries, in particular, are "six components made chiefly of aluminum, used to mount fuel pumps onto certain automotive spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines" (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).

CBP continued to find that Leco Supply Co. continued to evade antidumping and countervailing duties on wire hangers from Vietnam, after voluntarily requesting a remand from the Court of International Trade to reconsider the case. Submitting its results in a Nov. 10 filing at CIT, CBP included information not previously considered in its determination and also released revised public summaries of the business confidential information (BCI), in line with a recent CIT decision (Leco Supply, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00136).