Jacob Kopnick

Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.

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

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in six consolidated cases over Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denials failed to produce a settlement, the court said in a Dec. 14 report. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries (Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).

In its comments on the Commerce Department's remand results, antidumping review petitioner Nucor Tubular grappled with a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion rejecting particular market situation adjustments for the sales-below-cost test. Arguing that since this decision is not yet binding as the mandate has not been issued, the Court of International Trade can still consider Nucor's position and rule in favor of the PMS adjustment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT #20-00026).

CBP was well within its rights to reverse its finding that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, both the defendant-intervenors, Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co. and MSeafood Corp., and the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a pair of reply briefs. Responding to a motion for judgment from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade and Enforcement Committee, both briefs also argued that the petitioner group had no right to the business confidential information in the investigation, calling AHSTEC's arguments "borderline irresponsible" (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).

The Commerce Department said that two countervailing duty respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, in Dec. 13 remand results, flipping its position on the issue. The agency also granted one of the respondents, Canadian Solar, an entered value adjustment in response to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade that spurned the agency's decision to not make the adjustment. If sustained, the result would be a CVD rate cut for the respondents and non-selected companies (Canadian Solar Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00178).

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

The Commerce Department found that two companies' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, in a pair of remand results at the Court of International Trade, reversing its position on the issue under protest. The remand results came after a court opinion that did not agree with Commerce's original holding that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were subassemblies that required further incorporation into a larger downstream product (Worldwide Door Components, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).

While the companies found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China argue that the evasion investigation deprived them of their due process rights, this is not how Congress set up the evasion statute, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 10 brief. Opposing the plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the Enforce and Protect Act does not require CBP to notify a party that it's under investigation nor give a company access to confidential information or an opportunity to be heard. DOJ also made the case to CIT that the facts back up its ultimate evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03914).

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