Court of International Trade

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 11-17:

Products may be circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties even if they aren’t named in the original scope of an AD/CVD order and were available in another country at the time the order was issued, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled. Overturning a 2013 ruling by the Court of International Trade (see 13102804), the Federal Circuit’s April 5 opinion (here) held that 4.75mm diameter steel wire rod from Deacero is circumventing duties on steel wire rod from Mexico, despite the fact that the scope of the AD duty order is limited to rods 5mm to 19mm in diameter and 4.75mm wire rod was commercially available in Japan at the time the scope was written in 2002. Circumvention inquiries are meant to capture products that may not be named in the scope, and only specifically excluded products cannot be found to be circumventing, said CAFC. Although the 4.75mm wire rod was available in Japan, the smallest diameter available in the countries investigated in 2002 was 5.5mm, it said. “That some quantity of small-diameter steel wire rod may have been in existence at some time in non-investigated countries does not limit Commerce’s" circumvention analysis, said the appeals court as it reinstated the Commerce Department's original finding of circumvention.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of April 4-10:

The Court of International Trade recently launched a pilot to test a “small claims” process for trade cases, it said (here). The pilot, which began April 1 and is set to run for 18 months, “has been designed to achieve many of the benefits of a traditional small claims docket, particularly speed, efficiency, and affordability,” said CIT. The small claims procedures limit the costly and often lengthy “discovery” process, during which the parties to a case exchange relevant documents, information and evidence. The results of the pilot will inform CIT’s decision on the maximum dollar amount at stake in a case for use of the small claims procedure, as well as the types of cases that are eligible.

The Court of International Trade is asking for comments by May 2 on proposed changes to its rules, it said (here). The proposals include amendments to rules governing interrogatories and new rules and a new form for filing physical samples as evidence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on April 7 approved Court of International Trade nominees Elizabeth Drake, Jennifer Groves, and Gary Katzmann. The nominees, who testified in January (see 1601280036), still need approval from the full Senate. Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, noted that Judiciary hasn't held a judicial confirmation vote since early February, nor hosted a nomination hearing since January. “Committee members want to continue to discuss how this Committee should function – but that cannot be used as an excuse to further delay action on lower court nominees or legislation,” Leahy said in prepared remarks (here).

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 28 - April 3:

Screen printing frames imported by Rheetech are not covered by antidumping duties and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China because they are imported fully assembled, regardless of whether they are parts for larger screen printing machines, said the Court of International Trade in a March 31 decision (here). Again applying the logic he set forth in a February court ruling that found the scope of extruded aluminum duties does not cover assembled merchandise (see 1602020072), CIT Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu found Rheetech’s frames are not subject to duties because they are assemblies, not “shapes and forms,” and are not “subassemblies” because they are not “partially assembled.”

Krill oil imported by Jedwards International is classifiable in the HTS as an animal extract, not as an animal oil, said the Court of International Trade in a decision issued March 28 (here). Ruling against proposed classifications set forth by both Jedwards and CBP, the court held that the krill oil does not have a high enough triglyceride content to be considered an animal oil for tariff classification purposes.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 21-27: