Jacob Kopnick

Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), a Hong Kong-based apparel company and part of the Esquel group of companies, filed a July 6 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List dropped (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo et al., D.C. Cir. #21-01798). The Trump administration put CJE on the list last year for alleged practices of using forced labor from the Muslim Uyghur minority population in China's Xinjiang region.

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want their challenge to the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India in the Court of International Trade stayed pending their appeal in a related case over the existence of a particular market situation for hot-rolled coil in India. The Federal Circuit appeal will also address the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available due to the plaintiffs' unaffiliated vendor's failure to submit costs of production data. Garg's July 6 motion to stay received the consent of the two defendant-intervenors, Nucor Tubular Products and Wheatland Tube, but will meet opposition from the Justice Department (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

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

The Court of International Trade will stop liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to litigation over List 3 and List 4A Section 301 China tariffs, a CIT panel said in a July 6 opinion (Court No. 21-00052). Granting a preliminary injunction, Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that questions over limitations on CIT's ability to reliquidate the entries or grant a monetary judgment mean the Section 301 plaintiffs risk irreparable harm in the absence of one. Chief Judge Mark Barnett dissented, arguing that the court does have the power to reliquidate, and that the resulting lack of irreparable harm weighed against granting the injunction.

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

By subjecting aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor to two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations for the same conduct and entries, CBP violated Global Aluminum's rights to due process, the importer said. Filing a July 2 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Global Aluminum called out the customs agency for breaking "long-standing principles of fundamental fairness" by including the importer in multiple evasion investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act -- a process already riddled with due process violations, according to the complaint (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00312).

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration wanted to intervene in a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade in June. It was denied for failing to comply with CIT Rule 24 -- the rules governing intervention. In particular, the defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to state the issues it wanted to litigate (see 2106110029). Now, the ministry is back in CIT, filing a "renewed motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor" on June 16 (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

Many cases challenging findings of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act include claims that the process has violated an importer's constitutional rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment. Case after case in the Court of International Trade argues elements of the EAPA process -- from the lack of notice provided to an importer that it's under investigation to the insufficient public summaries of proprietary information in the investigation -- violate importers' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, the circumstances under which these claims may actually be heard by CIT may have yet to come, trade lawyers said.

The Commerce Department's decision to assume 24 working days per month for calculating surrogate labor rates, instead of 21 days, in an antidumping administrative review is unsupported, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a June 24 motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade. The coalition said the agency failed to properly explain its switch to 24 working days after originally relying on 21 days in its preliminary determination (Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood v. United States, CIT #20-03930).

The Commerce Department continued to use Malaysia as its primary surrogate country in an antidumping administrative review after the Court of International Trade told the agency to further explain the departure from using Romania, Commerce said in June 30 remand results. The agency did, however, grant that Romania classifies as a "significant producer" of activated carbon, the subject merchandise, a departure from its final results. The agency also switched to using Malaysian surrogate values for a key input in activated carbon for most of the mandatory respondents' suppliers.