Processes performed on steel bars do not constitute "further working" for the purposes of tariff classification, meaning the steel bars are still classifiable in a tariff subheading subject to Section 232 tariffs, DOJ said in a brief filed March 21 at the Court of International Trade. Arguing in favor of its cross-motion for judgment, DOJ said that imported grinding rods from China are still classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.40.00 as “Other bars and rods of other alloy steel … not further worked than forged." ME Global is seeking reclassification of the rods under the residual subheading 7326.11.00 as "other articles of iron or steel,” which are not subject to Section 232 tariffs (ME Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00179).
Antidumping petitioner Welspun Tubular plans to appeal to the Supreme Court over the question of whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping proceeding. According to a March 22 brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Welspun wants a stay in the mandate issued by the appellate court nixing the PMS adjustment while the Supreme Court considers the case (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The Commerce Department lawfully imposed countervailing duties on Vietnam's undervaluation of currency, DOJ said in a March 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Defending Commerce's recent practice to include currency undervaluation as a countervailable benefit, DOJ argued that the currency undervaluation was specific to traders and that the agency's decision to countervail the currency undervaluation is permitted under the statute (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00397).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 14-20:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, as well as the agency's final negative determination of critical circumstances, in confidential opinion March 18. In a public order on the case, Judge Gary Katzmann denied the motions for judgment filed by plaintiffs Government of Quebec, Marmen Energie and Government of Canada and by defendant-intervenor Wind Tower Trade Coalition. The litigants challenged Commerce's position that Quebec's local content requirement program didn't confer a countervailable subsidy on Marmen, among other things (The Government of Quebec v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00168).
The Court of International Trade on March 18 dismissed a lawsuit brought by a domestic pipe producer seeking to compel CBP to provide it with information related to an alleged duty evasion scheme by two importers. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that while the trade court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, Wheatland Tube Company improperly submitted its requests for information to CBP, and the agency properly rejected Wheatland's request to revoke a ruling letter.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
South Korean steel exporter Hyundai Steel Company filed a proposed judgment in a countervailing duty case after the Court of International Trade told litigants to do so as resolution of the matter was reached following a voluntary remand from the Commerce Department (see 2203100028). The proposed order would have the trade court sustain Commerce's remand results. In the remand, Commerce said that a South Korean sewerage fees program was not countervailable, leading to a de minimis rate for Hyundai Steel. In a March 9 joint status report, Hyundai and the U.S. said that case was resolved following the voluntary remand. The case concerns the 2018 CVD administrative review of cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps should not be allowed to amend its complaint since the case cannot be amended to claim jurisdiction over a denied protest after the 180-day window to file a challenge has lapsed, the Justice Department said in a March 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. also contested Dr. Bronner's motion since it sought to only amend the complaint and not the summons (All One God Faith v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00164).