The Federal Register notice announcing an antidumping duty investigation on walk-behind lawn mowers was sufficient notification to a Chinese exporter, and Commerce’s failure to otherwise notify the exporter of the investigation did not violate the exporter’s due process rights, the agency said in an issues and decision memorandum issued May 14 alongside its final determination in the investigation.

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

A case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination from aluminum extrusion importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply (see 2104300056)]) was consolidated with a similar case from Global Aluminum Distributor (see 2104280049), according to a May 17 order from the Court of International Trade. Both Hialeah and Global Aluminum argue that CBP's process of determining that the exporters evaded antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and the agency's own regulations.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 10-16.

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

The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).

International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from May 10-14 in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department failed to properly select respondents for a countervailing duty administrative review and assign an accurate CVD rate to the non-selected respondents, wood flooring exporters Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Jiangsu Keri Wood Co. and Sino-Maple Co. told the Court of International Trade in a May 14 brief supporting their motion for judgment. Commerce used faulty CBP data when picking its mandatory respondents for the case, and as a result incorrectly determined that Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. was one of the two largest exporters of the subject merchandise, leading to its selection as a mandatory respondent and subsequently skewing the all-other respondent rate in the investigation, the brief said.

The preliminary injunction the Section 301 plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2104230059) is “unwarranted,” falls short of the high legal "bar" required and if granted, “would impose an enormous administrative burden” on Customs and Border Protection when the agency is already stretched thin, argued DOJ’s opposition (in Pacer) Friday at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Importers filed for the injunction April 23 after DOJ refused to stipulate it would support refunds of liquidated entries if the plaintiffs won the litigation and the tariffs were declared unlawful.

Palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition's wish for an expedited briefing schedule has hit a snag, with the Department of Justice filing its opposition to the importer's application for an order directing the U.S. government to show cause why an expedited litigation schedule should not be entered in the Court of International Trade. Due to the case involving a "complex, novel legal issue" and a longer discovery period for the case, DOJ argued Virtus' request for a shortened litigation timeline should be nixed. The case involves Virtus' more than $2 million in palm oil imports from Malaysia held up by CBP over suspicions of having been made with forced labor, in violation of a Withhold Release Order (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00165).