A recent stipulated judgment in a case brought by North American Interpipe granting the importer refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties is relevant to six U.S. steel companies' court actions that are seeking to intervene in challenges to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials, the steel companies said. Filing a notice of supplemental authority to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the steel companies said that the settlement is "relevant to the parties' arguments concerning the potential for settlement of these actions" (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).
The Commerce Department opened the record on remand to accept Turkish exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's sections B and C questionnaire responses after the Court of International Trade ruled it was an abuse of discretion to reject the minutes-late submissions. In remand results filed April 1, Commerce dropped the dumping rate for Celik from 53.65% to 17.88%, centering the case on other issues in the antidumping duty investigation (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).
The Court of International Trade should reject the U.S.'s motion to dismiss a case challenging the Commerce Department's denial of a request to issue a scope ruling since the motion is "factually and legally inaccurate," plaintiffs led by Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. said in an April 1 brief. The plaintiffs said that the U.S.'s position that jurisdiction would be established at the end of a changed circumstances review requested by the plaintiffs is "plainly without any factual basis and purely speculative" (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).
The unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on April 1 for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument was held (see 2202010059), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to submit a joint status report 14 days after that, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation.”
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the Lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Friday. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that Lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation tat formed the legal basis of the Lists 1 and 2 tariffs.
There is no error in the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions, so importer MS Solar's lawsuit under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, should be dismissed, the U.S. said in a March 30 reply brief backing its motion to dismiss. Instead, the case should have been filed under Section 1581(c) to contest the antidumping duty review itself, the brief said (MS Solar Investments v. United States, CIT #21-00303).
Decisions by a single port of entry cannot act as the basis for claims of an established treatment nationally by CBP for customs purposes, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed March 29. In a tariff classification challenge brought by Kent International related to bicycle seats, DOJ said CBP New York/Newark's granting of protests doesn't establish a treatment that required notice and comment before CBP Long Beach classified the bicycle seats in a different subheading (Kent International Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00135).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative “properly exercised its authority” under the Section 307 modification provisions of the 1974 Trade Act when it ordered the imposition of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, the Court of International Trade ruled in an April 1 opinion. Test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, plus the more than 3,600 complaints that followed, sought to vacate the tariffs on grounds that lists 3 and 4A were unlawful without USTR launching a new Section 301 investigation.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: