The Court of International Trade granted the Department of Justice's motion for extension of the time of service in a penalty action against Kevin Ho, the owner and director of importer Atria, in a Sept. 14 order. After being briefed by both Ho and DOJ, Judge Timothy Reif also decided not to quash service even though the U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint (United States v. Chu-Chiang “Kevin” Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 14 struck down two Commerce Department scope rulings that found door thresholds are not finished products and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce's contention that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were not finished products is contradicted by record evidence, remanding the rulings to the agency for reconsideration.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Sept. 14 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 6-12:
The Department of Justice in a Sept. 13 filing sought Court of International Trade approval of the Commerce Department's remand results stemming from the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea (see 2106220064), which dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. However, DOJ did note that Commerce filed its remand results under respectful protest, continuing to find a particular market situation exists in South Korea. Following elimination of the PMS adjustment, Husteel, one of the plaintiffs in the case, received a 6.44% dumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai, the other plaintiff, received a 4.82% rate, down from 8.14%. Hyundai agreed with the remand results as well in an Aug. 25 filing (see 2108260026), citing that no parties submitted comments opposing the remand results (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).
Five steel companies filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in support of a full court rehearing in a critical case on presidential power regarding the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The brief, filed Sept. 7 by Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products, Koki Holdings America, J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple, was accepted by the appellate court Sept. 9. The five companies tap into the dissenting opinion at the Federal Circuit along with the Court of International Trade's original ruling to make the case that the appellate court erred in finding that the president could hike the Section 232 duties on Turkish goods well beyond procedural time limits (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit filed its mandates on Sept. 9 in two nearly identical Court of International Trade cases, following a decision from the appellate court two months earlier. In the case, the Federal Circuit upheld CIT's denial of CSC Sugar's challenge to a 2020 amendment to an antidumping suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico, in a July 19 ruling (see 2107190038) (CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, CIT #16-00016 and #20-00017).
Friday is the one-year anniversary of the first-filed Section 301 complaint alleging the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese goods are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act and violate the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy agency rulemakings (see 2009110041). Virtually all the roughly 3,800 cases from 6,500 or more importers that have since inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded with interest. The court’s order Wednesday vacating components of its July 6 preliminary injunction order instructed the government to liquidate customs entries from China with Lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, once the litigation becomes “final and conclusive” (see 2109080061). The order also frees the litigation to return to arguments on the merits after a prolonged battle over many months over refund relief. Oct. 1 is the deadline for DOJ to file papers supporting its June 1 dispositive motion and response to the plaintiffs’ Aug. 2 cross-motion. Nov. 15, the last date listed on the court’s April 13 briefing schedule (in Pacer), is when the plaintiffs file their reply.