The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 8-14:
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.
In an apparent effort to get past a Court of International Trade injunction that bars the agency from ending a safeguard duty exemption for bifacial solar panels, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is pulling back its original attempt to end the exemption. The agency issued notice that it is rescinding its “withdrawal notice” from October 2019 that had reimposed safeguard duties on solar bifacial panels before it was blocked by the court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 1-7:
Solar roof mountings made from extruded aluminum parts and steel fasteners do not qualify for the “finished merchandise” exemption from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling that marks the agency’s first application of a new definition for the exemption born from years of litigation on the subject.
The Court of International Trade on June 2 denied a bid by two nail importers for a preliminary injunction barring the government from collecting Section 232 tariffs on their steel “derivatives” imports. J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple did not show they would be irreparably harmed if tariff collections proceed, so they didn’t meet at least one of four factors required for the court to issue a preliminary injunction, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 25-31:
Women’s trousers imported by Lockhart Textiles that are made from a yarn that includes metal nanopowders are classifiable as trousers of synthetic fibers, rather than of “other textile materials,” the Court of International Trade said in a May 29 decision. Directly addressing the central issue of a series of cases on Best Key yarn that skirted it over five years ago (see 1502030060), CIT found the yarn used to make the trousers is not classifiable as “metalized yarn” of heading 5605.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued a statement late on May 27 criticizing a Court of International Trade decision issued that day that kept in place an injunction barring the withdrawal of an exemption for bifacial panels from Section 201 safeguard duties on solar cells (see 2005270025). “Today, Judge Katzmann of the Court of International Trade blocked USTR from closing the bifacial panel exception. USTR strongly disagrees with Judge Katzmann’s analysis,” the statement said. “The solar industry and the jobs it represents are important to this country, and USTR will take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that its safeguard relief is effective.”
The termination of an exemption from solar safeguard duties for bifacial solar panels will not yet proceed, after the Court of International Trade on May 27 refused to dissolve an injunction blocking its withdrawal, despite the government’s claims that a recent request for comments resolved the court’s concerns.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 18-24: