Australian steel exporter BlueScope Steel, along with its affiliates Australian Iron & Steel and BlueScope Steel Americas, voiced their support for the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. Filing comments at CIT on May 16, BlueScope backed Commerce's position which slashed the antidumping duties for BlueScope from 99.20% to 4.95% after dropping its reliance on adverse facts available based on BlueScope's U.S. sales quantity and value reporting data (BlueScope Steel Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).
Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and should not be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, and their inclusion in that price does not constitute double counting of duties, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a May 13 reply brief that came in response to arguments to the contrary from Nippon Steel Corp. (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).
Shrimp exporters Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co.'s and MSeafood Corp.'s surprise at the U.S. government's concession at oral argument that it did not review the entire record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case does not stand as proper grounds for supplemental briefing, plaintiff Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) argued. Submitting a May 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, the U.S. producers group argued that the supplemental briefing motion represents a bid to revisit the arguments presented in the case and should be rejected as such.
The Court of International Trade issued a May 17 opinion addressing two cases brought by Voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the importer and purchaser of entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, respectively. The cases both concern reliquidation requests on various steel entries without the Section 232 duties, based on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's approval of exclusion requests. The exclusions each originally contained an invalid Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, but by the time the error was discovered in both cases, CBP had liquidated the entries with the duties.
The International Trade Commission is seeking written submissions that address issues of remedy, bonding and the public interest in a case concerning imported batteries for cordless power tools. The request follows the commission's May 11 decision to review part of a March 25 initial determination by Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara, according to the May 17 notice (ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1244). Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed by close of business on May 25 and reply submissions no later than close of business on June 1.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Root Sciences will appeal an October 2021 Court of International Trade opinion that said that the court did not have jurisdiction over CBP's seizure of Root's goods. According to the May 13 notice of appeal, Root will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court ruled that since the seizure of an import does not deem a product excluded, thus precluding any protestable event, jurisdiction is barred at CIT for seized goods (see 2110070022). Root filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines as "drug paraphernalia" (Root Sciences v. United States, CIT #21-00123).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade assigned two customs actions brought by Beverly Hills watchmaker Ildico to Judge Jane Restani, the court said in two May 12 orders. Ildico filed the case to argue that its imported wristwatches within gold bezels and cases and with synthetic sapphires on front and back should be classifiable as wrist watches with precious metal cases of heading 9101, rather than as CBP liquidated them under subheading 9102 as other wrist watches (see 2204290030) (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., #18-00076, -00136).
The "text, structure, purpose, and history" of the Section 201 statute all reveal that Congress did not intend for the Court of International Trade's strict reading of the president's authority to modify safeguard duties, the U.S. argued in its May 11 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ is fighting to reverse a ruling at CIT that found that the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).