The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 12-18:
Court of International Trade
The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court which has national jurisdiction over civil actions regarding the customs and international trade laws of the United States. The Court was established under Article III of the Constitution by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The Court consists of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is located in New York City. The Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States and has exclusive jurisdictional authority to decide civil action pertaining to international trade against the United States or entities representing the United States.
A steel importer will receive refunds of Section 232 tariffs under a settlement that resolves its legal challenge of denied exclusion requests. Approved Oct. 15 by the Court of International Trade, the settlement directs CBP to reliquidate some entries covered by exclusions Borusan Mannesman Pipe U.S. had alleged were improperly denied by the Commerce Department. The government did not admit liability under the settlement.
Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu of the U.S. Court of International Trade should “automatically stay” all but the lead HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in the Section 301 litigation and designate HMTX-Jasco as the “test case,” the Department of Justice said in an Oct. 19 motion to adopt case management procedures. All the nearly 3,600 complaints inundating the CIT seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded. The roster of complaints attached to DOJ’s motion takes up 187 pages.
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 16 struck down a two-year-old Commerce Department scope ruling that found steel branch outlets used in fire protection system are subject to antidumping duties on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (A-570-814). Commerce had in September 2018 found branch fittings imported by Vandewater covered by AD duties, even though they only have a single welded connection, and are threaded on the other end (see 1810160069). CIT found Commerce failed to adequately explain itself, relying mostly on a previous scope ruling that doesn’t fully address the issue, and sent the scope ruling back down to Commerce for a fuller analysis.
Solar importers intend to oppose President Donald Trump’s Oct. 10 proclamation ending an exemption from safeguard duties for bifacial panels (see 2010130028), they told the Court of International Trade in a status report filed Oct. 15. The proclamation runs contrary to the safeguard laws, and is barred by a CIT injunction currently in effect against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s earlier attempts to end the exemption, they said. The brief was filed hours after a related court decision left the injunction in place.
President Donald Trump issued a proclamation Oct. 10 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says will end a hotly contested exemption for bifacial panels from safeguard duties on solar cells, despite a Court of International Trade injunction against its elimination that for now remains in effect (see 1912050063). The proclamation also increases the tariff applicable under the safeguard to account for bifacial panels already imported under the safeguard.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 5-11:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Sept. 28-Oct. 4:
President Donald Trump’s “many tweets” and statements from his administration are strong evidence the White House unlawfully imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs to boost the U.S. Treasury and not curb the allegedly bad Chinese trade behavior documented in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s March 2018 Section 301 investigative report. So said the lawyer for two automotive components importers making the case that the tariffs are unconstitutional because only Congress has the power of taxation.
The thousands of complaints seeking to vacate the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods and have the duties refunded warrant the Court of International Trade assigning the litigation to a three-judge panel instead of a single judge, Akin Gump said Sept. 30 on behalf of importers HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in a court filing. The Department of Justice told Akin Gump it opposes the motion and will file a response, it said.