Jacob Kopnick

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

Nucor Tubular Products launched a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade seeking higher dumping rates for the respondents in an antidumping review based on calculation errors committed by the Commerce Department (Nucor Tubular Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00543).

CBP erroneously classified importer Topcon Positioning System's rotating laser levels under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9031, the importer argued in a Sept. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By failing to analyze the principal use of the laser levels, CBP neglected to properly classify the products under HTS subheading 9015,the complaint said (Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00189).

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

The Commerce Department ditched its reliance on adverse facts available for respondent Hyundai Steel in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a challenge to an antidumping review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. After giving Hyundai an opportunity to explain a discrepancy between two product codes, the agency accepted the explanation and thus dropped its adverse facts available finding. Commerce also rescinded its decision to apply the all-others rate to one of Hyundai's affiliated freight companies, dubbed "Company A" (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).

The Commerce Department decided to value a key solar cell input using Bulgarian imports rather than Thai imports after the Court of International Trade said the agency's use of the Thai surrogate data was improper, it told the court in Sept. 27 remand results (Solarworld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00134).

Requiring a CBP protest to obtain a refund under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs usurps the authority of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and unlawfully hands it over to CBP, importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (ARP Materials, Inc., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

The International Trade Commission had no authority to deny lawyers representing LG Electronics access to confidential business information during a safeguard proceeding on solar cells from China, the lawyers argued in a Sept. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade. The congressional mandate for granting administrative protective orders (APOs) merely tells the ITC what it "shall" do, so commission had no grounds to deny a timely filed APO application, the Curtis Mallet-Prevost lawyers said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The Commerce Department's decision to pick Mexico over Malaysia as a surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation on Chinese quartz surface products was properly supported, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 24 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon upheld the determination, finding that the plaintiff, mandatory respondent Foshan Yixin Stone Company Limited, needed to prove that Malaysia was "the one and only reasonable surrogate country selection" -- something it failed to do.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied steel importer Transpacific Steel's motion for a full court rehearing of a panel decision to uphold President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff hike on Turkish steel, in a Sept. 24 order. Transpacifc, along with several Turkish steel makers, moved for the panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's majority failed to impose the congressionally mandated limitations to the president's power in Section 232. Also, the petition argued that the majority improperly rejected the plaintiff appellees' equal protection claims (see 2108250022) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).