Jacob Kopnick

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

Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

The Commerce Department's denial of third country sales data for evasion of antidumping duties in establishing normal value in an antidumping duty case lacks proper evidence, shrimp exporter Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited said in a brief filed June 18 with the Court of International Trade. ZASF said that there was no evidence in the record to back Commerce's reliance on CBP's determination in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that ZASF's shrimp imports from Vietnam evaded antidumping duties from India (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited et al v. United States, CIT #21-00031).

The Commerce Department cannot construe the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy as a de jure specific domestic subsidy in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain, the Court of International Trade said in a June 17 opinion. Finding for the second time that Commerce’s interpretation of the statute is contrary to law, Judge Gary Katzmann found that the agency cannot permissibly find that the CAP was a countervailable specific domestic subsidy since “there is no uniform treatment across the agricultural sector in the provision of benefits.”

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

A Court of International Trade decision eliminating the extension of Section 232 duties to steel and aluminum "derivatives" has formally been appealed by the U.S. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 17 docketing notice. The CIT ruling, decided by a three-judge panel at the trade court, found that President Donald Trump violated statutory time limits when expanding the tariffs to the derivative products. Importer PrimeSource Building Products successfully argued that the tariff expansion was announced well after the 105-day deadline for tariff action following the initial Commerce Department report that led to the initial imposition of the Section 232 duties in 2018 (see 2104050049) (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, Federal Circuit, #21-2066).

No serious gaps in the record exist proving that plywood producer Shelter Forest did not develop its plywood after the Commerce Department issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, the Department of Justice said in a brief June 16. Contradicting comments on Commerce's remand results from petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood, DOJ backed Commerce's remand decision to reverse its affirmative determination that Shelter Forest's plywood circumvented the AD/CV duties.

A Commerce Department determination to apply adverse facts available to Thai pipe exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company in an antidumping administrative review and spurn the company's sales and cost databases based on a notice of investigation in an evasion case is "egregious," Saha Thai said in a June 15 motion for judgment in the Court of International Trade. Saha Thai expressed particular concern over Commerce's decision to include the company's U.S. sales of dual-certified pipe in its calculation of the antidumping duty margin since it had already been determined that a scope ruling on dual-certified pipe did not apply to entries covered by the 2018-19 administrative review (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00049).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision finding that antidumping duty countrywide rates in non-market economies can still be based on adverse facts available even if no respondents were uncooperative in an administrative review (see 2106100044) will be considered in a Court of International Trade case on the Commerce Department's AFA policy, according to a June 14 notice of supplemental authority from the Department of Justice. The Federal Circuit decision in China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States "substantially overlaps" with a CIT case over Commerce's NME policy brought by Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., DOJ said (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191).

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