The Court of International Trade on Nov. 13 overturned a Commerce Department scope ruling that found cedar shingles and shakes are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on softwood lumber from Canada. The court said Commerce needed to explain why it had never considered shingles and shakes subject to softwood lumber cases dating back to 1982, but suddenly found they’re covered by the orders in the 2018 scope ruling.
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.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 4-10:
The withdrawal of an exemption from solar cells safeguards for bi-facial cells is still on hold, after the Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 issued a temporary restraining order blocking implementation until at least Nov. 21. The court’s order bars the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and CBP from withdrawing the exclusion from safeguard duties or modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to end the exemption. Though it expires Nov. 21, the temporary restraining order may be renewed or replaced by a more permanent preliminary injunction that is currently being considered by CIT. The withdrawal of the exclusion for bi-facial solar cells was initially supposed to take effect Oct. 28 (see 1910080054), before a legal challenge filed by Invenergy and joined by the Solar Energy Industries Association prompted a delay of the withdrawal (see 1911050034).
The International Trade Commission quietly re-added an exemption from solar safeguard tariffs for bi-facial cells to the tariff schedule in its most recently issued edition. Not found in the ITC’s usual change record for Revision 16 (see 1911010048), the unannounced amendment implements the Court of International Trade’s short-term extension to the effective date of the exclusion’s withdrawal (see 1910290033 and 1910080054). The exclusion had been removed in Revision 15 of the tariff schedule, issued only days earlier (see 1910250028). The exclusion could soon again be taken out, as the effective date of the withdrawal was only delayed to Nov. 8. CIT is set in the coming days to rule on whether to issue a temporary restraining order stopping the government from withdrawing the exemption and again taking it out of the tariff schedule. Invenergy Renewables, the company that filed the challenge of the exclusion’s withdrawal, has also requested a preliminary injunction to the same effect.
No lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade, and no appeals of CIT decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during the week of Oct. 28 - Nov. 3.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 21-27:
The Court of International Trade ordered that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative delay the effective date for a planned withdrawal of an exclusion to Section 201 safeguard measures. The Oct. 25 order, which was approved by Judge Gary Katzmann, followed an agreement between the Justice Department and Invenergy Renewables, which filed a challenge to the withdrawal. Invenergy, which is represented by Crowell and Moring, filed a complaint on Oct. 22 that asked the CIT for an injunction blocking the withdrawal due to what the company said were various statutory violations. The USTR on Oct. 9 said it would withdraw the exclusion for bifacial solar panels consisting only of bifacial solar cells on Oct. 28. Both sides agreed to extend the effective date to Nov. 8. That will give the CIT "additional time to address the arguments that the parties put forth in their respective filings and, thus, foster the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action," Invenergy said in an Oct. 25 filing.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 14-20:
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 overturned updated agreements suspending antidumping and countervailing duties on sugar from Mexico, finding Commerce illegally withheld information on conversations with Mexican sugar producers during the 2017 negotiations on the deal. The court held that Commerce’s failure to write memorandums detailing those conversations meant CSC Sugar, a U.S. importer and refiner of Mexican sugar that opposes the updated suspension agreements, did not have a chance to comment on the substance of parts of the underlying negotiations. Commerce is required by law and its own regulations to keep a complete administrative record of AD/CVD proceedings, CIT said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 7-13: