Jacob Kopnick

CBP misclassified Mitsubishi Power America's supported selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalysts, resulting in the entries wrongly being assessed Section 301 duties, the importer argued in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Instead, the supported SCR catalysts fit under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that was granted an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the importer said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Section 232 allows the president to expand tariff action beyond procedural time limits laid out in the law, as he did when he expanded the tariffs to cover steel and aluminum derivatives over a year after the tariffs were initially imposed, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Jan. 3 brief. Relying heavily on a recent CAFC opinion on an increase of tariffs on Turkish steel, DOJ said the president is allowed to expand Section 232 tariffs to products beyond the ones laid out in the original commerce secretary report as long as it's part of the original "plan of action" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

The Commerce Department properly denied antidumping duty respondent Icdas a duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that the respondent gave no evidence that its Inward Processing Certificates (i.e., requests to gain the drawback) were closed, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 brief. DOJ argued that the denial doesn't cut against past practice, and even if it did, would be a reasonable position to hold (Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi v. U.S., CIT #21-00306).

The Commerce Department erred when it weight-averaged reported raw material premium costs (DIRMATMP) for all control numbers (CONNUMs) because that distorts their costs, antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi said in a Jan. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent further argued against Commerce's decisions to deduct the amount of Section 232 duties paid from its U.S. price, limit Assan's full duty drawback adjustment and treat certain management fees as indirect selling expenses (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00616).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Auto parts and tools exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment under a U.S. goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade," said the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 30 opinion. Though Porsche Motorsport North America contended that the goods were exported to support race teams, CIT Judge Stephen Vaden found that the auto parts and tools were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required under subheading 9801.00.8500.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Department of Justice mischaracterized plaintiff Jeld-Wen's position in its challenge to an International Trade Commission injury determination to support a "baseless exhaustion argument" and cover up the ITC's "erroneous and inconsistent like product analyses," Jeld-Wen said in a Dec. 23 reply brief. Instead, Jeld-Wen argued, it had exhausted all administrative remedies over its like product challenge and its claims over the deficiencies in the ITC's like product analyses are backed by substantial evidence (Jeld-Wen, Inc.v. U.S., CIT #21-00114).

The Commerce Department's decision to rely on an antidumping duty respondent's actual costs of its non-prime products is backed by substantial evidence and in line with the law, the Court of International Trade said in its first decision of the new year. The trade court said this complies with a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, Dillinger France S.A. v. U.S.

The Court of International Trade granted a stay in an antidumping duty case brought by Interpipe Ukraine until the question over the legality of reducing the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid is sorted out. In particular, Interpipe Ukraine's case is stayed until an action brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret is fully decided at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since that case also concerns the question of Section 232 reductions (see 2106170026). CIT has held that the Commerce Department can reduce a respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid in an AD case (Interpipe Ukraine LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00530).