Jacob Kopnick

In remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department continued to find that antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. has failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate, making it part of the China-wide entity, and that the application of Commerce's non-market economy definition to Jinqiao Flooring was reasonable. The remand results relied heavily on a June U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, China Manufacturers Alliance v. U.S., which established that China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available even if no members of the country-wide entity were found to be uncooperative (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191).

President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.

The DOJ further argued for the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions since the 19 entries that are the subject of litigation have not been liquidated. In a Nov. 12 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, wrongly argue that their protests don't concern the tariff classification of their merchandise. The protests at issue seek use of a tariff exclusion, which is a challenge of the tariff classification, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

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

Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

The International Trade Commission's finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry is not based on substantial evidence and should be remanded, exporter Adisseo Espana and its U.S. subsidiary argued in a Nov. 12 complaint to the Court of International Trade. In finding domestic industry harm, the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence," Adisseo said (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

CBP erred in its classification of importer Alpi International's stress toys, since the agency's classification decision cut against its practice regarding the same toys for nearly 30 years, Alpi argued in its Nov. 12 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Alpi International, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00064). Since 1993, Alpi imported Squeezies stress toys under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.90, which provides for toys. This changed in November 2019, however, when CBP then changed its classification decision, instead liquidating the stress toys under HTS subheading 3926.40.0090. CBP said that the toys fit under this subheading since they are not shaped like a ball and ornamental plastic statuettes. Alpi argued that the toys are more accurately described under its preferred HTS subheading and that CBP failed to give the toys the disputed classification throughout the years it was being imported. As early as July 2018, CBP examined the toys and came up with the decision that they should be classified under subheading 9503.00.0090, the complaint said. Lastly, CBP violated its past practice by failing to classify the toys under Alpi's preferred classification, the company said.

A key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day deadline for action laid out in the statute is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Transpacific Steel, Borusan Mannesmann and The Jordan International Company filed a petition Nov. 12 in an attempt to get the high court to side with the original Court of International Trade decision, which held that the president may not make such adjustments.

Importer Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, contesting what is the proper classification for its aluminum fuel pump mounts. Hongteo is seeking a more favorable HTS subheading that would lower the duty rate for the mounts and remove the Section 301 China tariff liability from the imports. The entries, in particular, are "six components made chiefly of aluminum, used to mount fuel pumps onto certain automotive spark-ignition internal combustion piston engines" (Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03776).

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