The Court of International Trade should not grant Nucor Corporation's stay motion in a countervailing duty case because Nucor has not shown that a stay would facilitate an efficient resolution of the case or conserve the court's resources or that "any duplication of efforts outweighs the detrimental effects of its requested indefinite stay," the U.S. argued in a June 24 reply brief (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00070).

Importer Global Aluminum Distributor in a June 24 reply brief dropped its opposition to defendant-intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's bid to lift the stay order at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case looking into aluminum extrusions from China. The action was brought by H&E Home and Classic Metals Suppliers, later joined by Global Aluminum as a consolidated plaintiff, to contest the CBP's finding that the plaintiffs were evading the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic. The case was stayed pending the resolution in another matter brought by Global Aluminum over CBP's evasion finding (H&E Home v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00337).

The Court of International Trade should not grant the U.S.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case over whether commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation failed to collect customs user fees for airline ticket purchases, NetJets argued in a June 24 brief. The plaintiff said that the U.S.'s motion seeking the extension is improperly based on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's stay rules during mediation since NetJets and CBP also have a case in that court that would resolve the CIT case. The plaintiff said a mediation did not result in a stay in the district court and that no stay had been granted there. NetJets did, though, consent to a shorter extension of time so that the U.S. could file its reply (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00142).

The Court of International Trade in a June 24 opinion denied plaintiff Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' move to amend its complaint in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case to explicitly contest CBP's denial of its protests over the xanthan gum entries subject to the EAPA decision. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the motion was clearly untimely and futile, and found that the delay in filing the amended complaint was undue and that the plaintiff still fails to identify the protests it is contesting.

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

Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani granted a motion from Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to consolidate two cases filed by the watchmaker in May, according to a June 23 ruling (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136). The complaints argue that Ildico's imported wristwatches with gold bezels and cases and synthetic sapphires should be classified as duty-free "wrist watches with precious metal cases" of heading 9101, rather than as "other wristwatches" under subheading 9102 as classified by CBP (see 2204290030).

Plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case and the U.S. filed a joint motion for judgment after CBP said in remand results at the Court of International Trade that it no longer believes importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In the joint motion, counsel for Global Aluminum, Hialeah, the U.S. and Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio said that the court should sustain the remand results since no party contests CBP's position. In the remand results, CBP took another look at the record and said that it cannot conclude that evasion took place (see 2206150047) (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

The U.S., in an amended complaint, continues to fail to show that importer Crown Cork & Seal (CCS) committed fraud or gross negligence over misclassified metal lid imports, the importer argued in a June 22 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. Seeking again to have the trade court toss the U.S.'s first two counts in the case, CCS said the amended complaint doesn't provide any new facts that can revive the two counts which Judge M. Miller Baker already dismissed (U.S. v. Crown Cork & Seal, CIT #21-00361).

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

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has 32 extra days, until Aug. 1, to file its Lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results in the Section 301 litigation, said an order in docket 1:21-cv-52 signed Wednesday by the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade. DOJ, on USTR’s behalf, asked for a 60-day extension to Aug. 30 to fix its Administrative Procedure Act violations, citing the volume of work required to meet the remand order, plus the agency’s limited staff resources and the additional projects compounding its workload (see 2206210030). Akin Gump lawyers for test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products urged the court to stick to its original June 30 deadline, arguing USTR shouldn’t be given more time to do a new post hoc review of the submitted Lists 3 and 4A comments and hearing testimony. If USTR needs an additional deadline extension beyond Aug. 1, DOJ “should address in greater detail” USTR’s reasons for the request, said Wednesday’s order. It cited language in the April 1 remand order that the agency may further explain only the justifications it previously gave for imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs without introducing new rationales that didn’t exist before. A joint status report from DOJ and the plaintiffs is due 14 days after the remand results are filed, including a proposed schedule “for the further disposition of this litigation,” said Wednesday’s order.