A trailer with auto parts and tools exported to Canada to support Porsche race teams and then returned by Porsche does not qualify for duty-free treatment as “tools of the trade” under subheading 9801.00.05 because the tools were never declared to CBP, and the parts don’t qualify as tools, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to Porsche’s motion for judgment in the case (see 2104270030).

The Commerce Department acted within its authority when it decided not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to an importer’s motion for judgment in the case.

South Korean wind tower maker CS Wind didn't receive any special benefit from the Import Duty Exemptions on Raw Materials for Exported Goods program and actually overreported information on its raw material inputs, making the application of adverse facts available improper, the Department of Justice argued. In a May 26 reply brief, DOJ responded to a challenge from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition claiming that the Commerce Department erred in not applying AFA to CS Wind in a countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam. WTTC argued that certain inputs of steel plate, a raw material in the wind towers, could have actually been imported instead of made in Vietnam (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT #20-03692).

In complying with a May 25 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia order to remove the “Communist Chinese military company” designation from Chinese consumer electronics giant Xiaomi, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a FAQ May 27 saying that the prohibitions under the designation “do not apply with respect to Xiaomi.” The Defense Department and Xiaomi jointly moved to drop the label after District Judge Rudolph Contreras said it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and was made on insufficient evidence (see 2105120047). To date, two other companies so labeled have challenged the designation in the D.C. district court, and one, Luokung Technologies, has been granted a preliminary injunction.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rule that pencil importer Prime Time exhausted its administrative options by asking the Commerce Department five times for "gap-filling" information that was necessary to determine the correct antidumping duty rate, the company said in a May 26 filing with the CAFC. The company "seeks remand here, directing the Trade Court to instruct Commerce to place gap-filling information only Commerce can access on the record to give Prime Time the meaningful opportunity provided by the statute to show the margin for its entries to be less than the highest prior margin," it said in its opening brief.

The Court of International Trade on May 27 upheld remand results from the Commerce Department that reversed a scope ruling that included ready-to-assemble kitchen cabinets in antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. While the agency continued to hold the request for the scope ruling was specific enough, despite concerns in his initial remand from Judge Gary Katzmann, Commerce on further examination found that the scope requests lacked sufficient supporting evidence and explanation.

Tool retailer Stanley Black & Decker filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, hoping to piggyback on a recent decision striking down the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives," according to a May 27 complaint. The decision, PrimeSource Buildnig Products, Inc. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-00032, found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding the Section 232 tariffs onto derivative products (see 2104050049). A three-judge panel at the court made the decision, ultimately finding that only PrimeSource would be granted refunds for payments made toward the 25% steel derivatives tariffs. While the decision stopped imposing the tariffs for imports and unliquidated goods, it found that it would only grant refunds on a per-case basis. The company is seeking a refund with interest for any payments made toward the duties.

The Department of Justice wants a stay in a case involving the Commerce Department's use of its non-market economy policy, arguing that issues in a related appeals court case have implications for the case in the Court of International Trade. In a May 25 motion, DOJ argued that since the Federal Circuit case, China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, Fed. Cir. #2020-1159, deals with whether the statute authorizes Commerce to apply a China-wide rate to an exporter that failed to show freedom from government control in an antidumping investigation, the outcome of the case will "likely impact the outcome of this remand" (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191). In the CIT case, the court remanded an antidumping investigation on multilayered wood flooring, finding that the agency's determination that Chinese exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence (see 2104300079). The decision took issue with Commerce's application of the China-wide rate to Jilin, given that Commerce's NME policy was meant to incentivize greater compliance and Jilin fully complied with all Commerce requests.

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