The preliminary injunction that the Section 301 plaintiffs seek to freeze liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2104260010) is “unwarranted,” falls short of the high legal "bar" required and “would impose an enormous administrative burden” on CBP when the agency’s resources already are stretched thin, DOJ’s May 14 opposition argued at the Court of International Trade. Importers filed for the injunction April 23 after DOJ wouldn't stipulate it would support refunds of liquidated entries if the plaintiffs won the litigation and the tariffs were ruled unlawful.

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

Chinese tire exporters argued against the Commerce Department's choice to only use one mandatory respondent in an antidumping case on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, filing opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 11. Exporters and appellants ITG Voma Corporation, Suton Tire Resources, YC Rubber Co. and Mayrun Tyre submitted two briefs in the appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion that determined that the statute allows for Commerce to select only one respondent. The exporters argue this is a misinterpretation of the law, citing the language of the governing statute, which includes the plural terms "exporters" or "producers."

The U.S. issued guidance last week to address industry uncertainty and a rising number of questions about export licensing jurisdiction for goods sent under its Foreign Military Sales Program. The guidance -- which includes frequently asked questions developed by Homeland Security, CBP and the Commerce, State and Defense departments -- was issued because the agencies “continue to receive questions” about exports that were moved from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List but are exported under FMS authority. They said exporters are “having difficulty” understanding how Commerce’s Export Administration Regulations, the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the FMS Program “relate to each other” for goods that have recently transitioned from the ITAR to the EAR.

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 May 3-9.

The Commerce Department failed to substantiate the quantity of fish meal and fish oil byproducts when granting a byproduct offset in a remand of an antidumping case, the defendant intervenor, the Catfish Farmers of America, argued in the Court of International Trade. Opposing remand results in a May 11 filing in CIT, CFA said Commerce's decision to flip its byproduct offset ruling on plaintiff NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s fish meal and fish oil products was contrary to agency practice and the law. The decision to grant the offset failed to “substantiate” byproduct production and used “unreasonable surrogates to value NTSF's fish meal and oil by-product offsets,” CFA argued. NTSF agreed with the remand results in its own comments.

Since CBP seized a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine and did not subject it to deemed exclusion from entry, a case challenging the seizure does not have jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a May 12 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Importer Root Sciences argues that since it received a notice of seizure after the date of deemed exclusion, its shipment was deemed excluded from entry and thus warranting of jurisdiction in CIT, but citing past court precedent, DOJ said that notice of seizure is not the date of seizure, declaring that "a seizure necessarily occurs prior to the date on which Customs issues the notice of seizure," (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

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

The Department of Justice requested a stay of proceedings in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, arguing that there is significant overlap with a case currently before the Federal Circuit on the issue of whether a particular market situation existed in South Korea for the product in question. Filing for the stay in a case brought by SeAH Steel Corporation challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, DOJ said that the Federal Circuit's decision will answer one of the central questions in SeAH's lawsuit, and would "likely streamline the issues in the case" (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT # 19-00086). Plaintiffs do not consent to the stay request.