The Commerce Department has the authority to modify the scope of an antidumping duty investigation in response to evidence of evasion to ensure that the ultimate order "provides an effective remedy," the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 12 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ also backed the actual scope decision at issue in the case itself, asserting it was based on substantial evidence that showed Chinese companies were planning to use the original crushed glass exclusion to evade Commerce's AD/CVD orders on quartz-glass product (M S International, Inc., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a notice of noncompliance Nov. 15 to counsel for the U.S. government in a case involving Section 232 duties. The notice said only one attorney may serve as principal counsel for each party. Two Department of Justice attorneys, Stephen Tosini and Kyle Beckrich, currently are listed in the docket as counsel for the U.S., with both marked to receive notice. Tosini is listed as the lead counsel and Beckrich as the counsel of record. The Federal Circuit said that "a party's failure to timely file a corrected document curing all defects identified on this notice may result in this document being stricken (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. , #21-2066).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed on Nov. 16 a case challenging a 2020 amendment to an antidumping suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico following a voluntary dismissal motion from the Department of Justice. The appellate court previously upheld the Court of International Trade's denials of two related cases (see 2107190038). Earlier this month, both DOJ and the plaintiff-appellee CSC Sugar said they believe it would be appropriate for the court to dismiss the consolidated appeal (see 2111020069) (CSC Sugar LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-1275).

In remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department continued to find that antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. has failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate, making it part of the China-wide entity, and that the application of Commerce's non-market economy definition to Jinqiao Flooring was reasonable. The remand results relied heavily on a June U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, China Manufacturers Alliance v. U.S., which established that China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available even if no members of the country-wide entity were found to be uncooperative (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191).

The DOJ further argued for the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions since the 19 entries that are the subject of litigation have not been liquidated. In a Nov. 12 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, wrongly argue that their protests don't concern the tariff classification of their merchandise. The protests at issue seek use of a tariff exclusion, which is a challenge of the tariff classification, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

The International Trade Commission's finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry is not based on substantial evidence and should be remanded, exporter Adisseo Espana and its U.S. subsidiary argued in a Nov. 12 complaint to the Court of International Trade. In finding domestic industry harm, the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence," Adisseo said (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

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

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company and the Department of Justice will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the petitioner and DOJ said in two Nov. 15 notices of appeal. In the case, CIT found that the Commerce Department cannot make a cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. On remand, Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment but continued to find that a PMS existed in Thailand (see 2106010026). The case is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

CBP erred in its classification of importer Alpi International's stress toys, since the agency's classification decision cut against its practice regarding the same toys for nearly 30 years, Alpi argued in its Nov. 12 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Alpi International, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00064). Since 1993, Alpi imported Squeezies stress toys under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9503.00.90, which provides for toys. This changed in November 2019, however, when CBP then changed its classification decision, instead liquidating the stress toys under HTS subheading 3926.40.0090. CBP said that the toys fit under this subheading since they are not shaped like a ball and ornamental plastic statuettes. Alpi argued that the toys are more accurately described under its preferred HTS subheading and that CBP failed to give the toys the disputed classification throughout the years it was being imported. As early as July 2018, CBP examined the toys and came up with the decision that they should be classified under subheading 9503.00.0090, the complaint said. Lastly, CBP violated its past practice by failing to classify the toys under Alpi's preferred classification, the company said.

Importer Strategic Import Supply will appeal an April Court of International Trade ruling that found that the 180-day deadline for CBP protests runs from the date of liquidation, rather than the date CBP received updated assessment instructions from the Commerce Department (see 2104210066). Per a Nov. 11 notice of appeal, Stragetic Import Supply will take its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer challenged CBP's assessment of countervailing duties on its imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Stephen Vaden dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 180-day protest deadline is not extended even after Commerce amended the rates set in the relevant CV duty administrative review (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, CIT #20-03762).