The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Two importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain remand results from the Commerce Department that found certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a pair of briefs filed in two separate cases, Columbia Aluminum Products and Worldwide Door Components said Commerce correctly reversed course after CIT's remand (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).
The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific via its Basic Payment Scheme to Spanish olive growers since they receive a "disproportionately large" amount of its benefits, the Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives told the Court of International Trade in a pair of briefs (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT #18-00195).
The Commerce Department dropped its reliance on facts available in an antidumping duty investigation after conducting remand proceedings at the Court of International Trade, finding a questionnaire it issued in lieu of a site visit during the coronavirus pandemic "satisfies the verification requirement" laid out in the statute, in remand results filed Jan. 12 at the Court of International Trade (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00007).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 11 brief. Commerce's scope ruling is backed by a reading of each "(k)(2)" factor, including the physical characteristics of the steel branch outlets, the ultimate purchasers' expectations, the ultimate use of the product, and channels of trade in which the product is sold (Vandewater International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00199).
Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the U.S. Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act modification authority by imposing the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, said Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation, posted Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160003). In Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., decided Nov. 16, the court decided President Donald Trump “acted outside of his delegated authority” when he relied on a modification provision in Section 204 of the Trade Act to increase “safeguard tariffs” to protect the domestic solar panel industry against foreign imports, said Akin Gump. For the purposes of HMTX-Jasco, the court in SEIA said “reading the modification provision as a whole confirms” that Section 307 of the Trade Act “permits only reductions, not increases, in tariff actions,” as HMTX and Jasco argued, it said. The court’s opinion in Invenergy Renewables LLC v. U.S., decided Nov. 17, “likewise supports” the Section 301 plaintiffs’ arguments on APA violations when it vacated a USTR rule because the agency didn’t adequately address the significant comments “raised by opponents of the rule USTR adopted,” said Akin Gump. Oral argument in the Section 301 test case is scheduled for Feb. 1.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to apply Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions to their 19 entries, filed a notice of supplemental authority citing CBP rulings on classification of steel goods under Section 232 and Presidential Proclamation 9705 on the Section 232 tariffs to further support their arguments. The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case since the entries are unliquidated, precluding the Court of International Trade from having judicial review over the entries and the resulting tariff exclusion claims (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).