The Supreme Court should take up a case on whether President Donald Trump lawfully expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum duties to cover "derivative" products to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive, petitioner PrimeSource Building Products argued. Filing a brief in response to the government's defense, PrimeSource claimed that its case gives the court a chance to "do something about" the government's position that the executive can exercise both Congress' legislative powers and the judiciary's "interpretive responsibilities" (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-69).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 2-8:
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 10 order granted a U.S. consent request for a remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to deny LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on specialty steel products. The government said in its motion for remand that it will either grant the requests and exclude the product from the scope of the steel and aluminum duties, deny the requests or "some combination of both" (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 22-00245).
The U.S. must further explain its decision not to add certain documents to the record in a case on the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of importer Southern Cross Seafoods' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Timothy Reif said in an Oct. 5 opinion made public Oct. 10 that the government must address inconsistencies in its reasons for not including information showing how the NMFS obtained outside legal opinions included in the administrative record and information identifying who authored a relevant legal opinion.
Trade lawyers and importers are wondering how the anti-stockpiling element of a two-year pause on trade remedy circumvention deposits will be enforced.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade set a briefing schedule in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand following the departure of respondent Saffron Living Co. from the case. Plaintiffs, led by U.S. company Brooklyn Bedding, are to compile and serve their soft appendix within seven days of the Oct. 6 order and then are to file their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results within seven days of the appendix being filed. The U.S. will file its response no later than 15 days after the remand comments (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).
Importer Spirit Aerosystems' reading of the statute pertaining to its drawback claim for unused substitution drawback would lead to "unpredictable and often absurd results," the U.S. said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Spirit's argument that CBP's implementation of the statute "misconstrues basic tariff terms, renders entire sections" of the law "inoperative, and requires the omission of certain words from the drawback statute," the government claimed (Spirit Aerosystems v. United States, CIT # 20-00094).
The Commerce Department made a host of errors in its antidumping duty calculations in an administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, including the improper collapsing of pipemaker Maquilacero and auto-parts manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos (TEFLU), the two companies argued in a Sept. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Maquilacero v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00091).
Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).