Jacob Kopnick

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

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corporation along with consolidated plaintiff Husteel Co., Nexteel Co., AJU Besteel and Iljin Steel Corporation, argued against a government motion in the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case until the Federal Circuit rules on a similar question in a separate case. In a May 17 joint opposition brief, the plaintiffs said that the Department of Justice failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the Federal Circuit case, doesn't argue that it would be "irreparably injured" without a stay, and doesn't consider that there is a fair chance the plaintiffs would be injured by the stay.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China, backing the Commerce Department's addition to the scope in its final determinations of language covering Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) chrome-covered wheels. In a pair of opinions, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce had authority to determine the scope of its investigations, and found that the agency "provided adequate explanation" for its decision to include PVD chrome wheels. However, Katzmann did remand the cases due to Commerce's retroactive imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties, instructing the agency to assess the duties from the final scope memo that made the scope changes, and not the date of the preliminary determination.

The Court of International Trade ruled that a shipment of 443 bales of secondhand clothing imported by DIS Vintage should be classified as “commingled goods” and subject to the “highest rate of duty for any part thereof,” siding with the government in a May 17 opinion. Judge Timothy Reif, after a government analysis of 41 samples of the subject merchandise, determined that nine weren't classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309 as “worn clothing and other worn articles” since they had no visible signs of appreciable wear.

The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).

Palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition's wish for an expedited briefing schedule has hit a snag, with the Department of Justice filing its opposition to the importer's application for an order directing the U.S. government to show cause why an expedited litigation schedule should not be entered in the Court of International Trade. Due to the case involving a "complex, novel legal issue" and a longer discovery period for the case, DOJ argued Virtus' request for a shortened litigation timeline should be nixed. The case involves Virtus' more than $2 million in palm oil imports from Malaysia held up by CBP over suspicions of having been made with forced labor, in violation of a Withhold Release Order (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00165).

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

The Commerce Department failed to properly select respondents for a countervailing duty administrative review and assign an accurate CVD rate to the non-selected respondents, wood flooring exporters Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Jiangsu Keri Wood Co. and Sino-Maple Co. told the Court of International Trade in a May 14 brief supporting their motion for judgment. Commerce used faulty CBP data when picking its mandatory respondents for the case, and as a result incorrectly determined that Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. was one of the two largest exporters of the subject merchandise, leading to its selection as a mandatory respondent and subsequently skewing the all-other respondent rate in the investigation, the brief said.

The government's lawsuit seeking to collect antidumping duties on imports of canned mushrooms from China brought in between 2001 and 2002 suffers from serious legal shortcomings, surety American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) said in a May 14 reply brief in the Court of International Trade. Arguing that the government's claims are precluded under res judicataand stare decisis , barred under the statute of limitations and based on untimely and legally void reliquidations, the surety wants the court to rule on the case and grant it the costs associated with litigation. "It defies logic that bills issued ten (10) years later for the same set of entries should be more recoverable than the bills issued in a far shorter time frame," the surety said.

Chinese tire exporters argued against the Commerce Department's choice to only use one mandatory respondent in an antidumping case on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, filing opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 11. Exporters and appellants ITG Voma Corporation, Suton Tire Resources, YC Rubber Co. and Mayrun Tyre submitted two briefs in the appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion that determined that the statute allows for Commerce to select only one respondent. The exporters argue this is a misinterpretation of the law, citing the language of the governing statute, which includes the plural terms "exporters" or "producers."