Steel nail importer Hilti, Inc. filed a consent motion to stay proceedings on June 30 in its Court of International Trade case challenging the legality of the expansion of the Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum “derivatives” pending a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion on the same topic. CIT recently halted liquidation of Hilti's entries pending the resolution of the case (see 2106300032). Hilti wants to pause the case until the Federal Circuit reaches an opinion in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. CIT previously held in the PrimeSource case that the Section 232 tariff expansion onto derivative products violated statutory time limits. Counsel for Hilti conferred with Ann Motto of the Justice Department, who consented to the stay (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

The Census Bureau is considering a proposed rule that would require export filers to declare the country of origin for foreign products included in certain transactions. The agency considered the change about five years ago but has recently returned to the idea and expects to issue a proposal “soon,” said Omari Wooden, a senior Census official. “It’s something that's on the horizon,” Wooden said, speaking during the American Association of Exporters and Importers annual conference June 30. “You'll probably be seeing more information about that soon.”

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

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 21-27.

Steel nails imported after 12:01 a.m. Feb. 8, 2020 by Hilti that remain unliquidated will remain unliquidated, per a June 30 order from the Court of International Trade. Hilti filed the consent motion to enjoin the liquidation June 29, claiming that it's likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Hilti argued that because the court ruled that the expansion of Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum “derivatives” violated statutory time limits in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., it should succeed in its case since it shares the “same cause of action” as PrimeSource (see 2106290041). The entries will remain liquidated until the “final resolution of the merits of this case, including through any appellate process” (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

The Commerce Department's decision to swap the basis for its total adverse facts available determination in an antidumping administrative review is backed by substantial evidence and in line with Court of International Trade remand orders, the Department of Justice said in June 30 comments on the remand results. After Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce improperly relied on two issues with plaintiff Hung Vuong Group's data submitted to the agency to determine AFA, Commerce flipped to two other elements of HVG's data to make the same determination (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Court of International Trade ruled June 29 it doesn't have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case because the plaintiff didn't protest that entry's reliquidation. The lawsuit will continue over the remaining 11 entries.

The Department of Justice said in June 30 oral argument before the Court of International Trade that its positions on the proper jurisdiction for cases challenging either the exclusion or seizure of goods identified as drug paraphernalia are consistent in district courts and CIT. If an import is excluded from entry by CBP, CIT has jurisdiction. If the good is seized, the district court has jurisdiction, it said. DOJ argues that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by Root Sciences since CBP seized a cannabis crude extract recovery machine from the importer rather than excluding it (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

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

Hilti, Inc., with consent from the Department of Justice, moved for the Court of International Trade to stop liquidation of its steel nail entries pending a result in its challenge of the expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel “derivatives,” in a June 29 filing. The importer wants the court to bar CBP from liquidating its steel nails entries subject to the 25% steel derivatives tariffs for entries made after 12:01 am Feb. 8, 2020. Hilti conferred with Ann Motto of DOJ, who consented to the suspension of liquidation, without addressing the likelihood of success in the case, the company said (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).