Jacob Kopnick

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

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' Court of International Trade case challenging CBP's antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding should continue, even though the relevant entries have liquidated, because the lawsuit was properly filed under Section 1581(c), the company said in a Sept. 1 reply brief. Responding to a partial motion to dismiss from the Department of Justice, Dr. Bronner's said that since the Enforce and Protect Act, under which the evasion finding was made, is codified under 19 USC 1517, the proper jurisdiction for its challenge of an EAPA investigation is Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

Furniture importer Aspects Furniture International has a protectable interest in an antidumping duty evasion case at the very least due to "goodwill, reputation, and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities" concerns, the importer said in an Aug. 30 filing in the Court of International Trade. Responding to the Department of Justice's arguments countering its initial motion for judgment, AFI also said that, contrary to the government's position, CBP's limited administrative avenues to submit written arguments during the investigation were insufficient from a constitutional perspective to reject AFI's due process violation claims (Aspects Furniture International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

Two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, filed for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. CBP recently continued to issue the penalty notices for companies shipping Alaskan seafood from Alaska to the eastern U.S. via the Bayside, New Brunswick, Canada, port, alleging Jones Act violations. The two companies challenged these penalties in the district court, declaring that they have essentially shut down this critical shipping route that had been previously cleared by CBP as complying with the Jones Act.

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

The Commerce Department switched its original determination and relied on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by an antidumping respondent in Sept. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the second remand in the case, Commerce made the change after the court sustained the other seven issues under contention in the first remand (Husteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00112).