Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
A CBP headquarters official, chosen to help shape national policy on de minimis, said that while the trade community welcomed the opportunity for electronic clearance of packages that require partner government agency review, importers are often not following the reasonable care standard required for Type 86 entries. The Type 86 test is for packages that are low enough value to avoid duties under the de minimis statute, but are not eligible for de minimis because they contain goods that PGAs inspect. If importers participate in the test -- and there were more than 623 million packages last fiscal year that were covered -- they must provide a 10-digit Harmonized Tarff Schedule code.
Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Parties on the defendants’ side in two cases Feb. 21 opposed a motion of joinder in separate briefs, saying that, although both were litigating claims against an affirmative International Trade Commission injury determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers, their cases raise “unique” legal issues with little crossover (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).
Solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy responded to the U.S. motion to dismiss their suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (see 2401230040) (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 that solar companies and industry groups led by the Solar Energy Industries Association failed to show that an en banc rehearing was needed for a decision upholding President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: