The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).
DOJ asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a case concerning CBP's errant liquidation of its entries of softwood lumber for lack of jurisdiction, in a Dec. 8 motion. Fraserview failed to file a protest contesting liquidation of its entries within the 180-day window, DOJ said, but the company had an available and adequate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) if it had filed a protest and challenged its denial (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00244).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 12 opinion dismissed a lawsuit from importer MS Solar on the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions issued after an antidumping duty administrative review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Tossing the case without prejudice, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the case, which was filed under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction -- could not stand because relief would have been available under Section 1581(c). The judge said the "underlying issue in this case is an error" that affected the final results and not Commerce's liquidation instructions.
In a briefing to members of the European Parliament, the European Commission's top trade official, Valdis Dombrovskis, said he expects the negotiations with the U.S. over the discriminatory aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act to partially, but not fully, resolve EU concerns.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. cannot rely on the Commerce Department's post hoc rationalization of its decision to countervail glass subsidies in a countervailing duty review, plaintiff-appellants, led by Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that the government did not take new agency action in making its determination, showing a "kind of bait and switch decision-making" decried in a key Supreme Court case (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
Aluminum pair ramps imported by Central Purchasing, LLC (dba Harbor Freight Tools), are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), the Commerce Department said in a scope ruling dated Oct. 31. The ruling followed a February 2021 request from Harbor Freight to determine whether three models of aluminum pair ramps were covered by the orders.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: