A group of surety trade associations' attempt to file an amicus curiae brief in support of American Home Assurance Company in the Court of International Trade hit a snag when the Department of Justice opposed their filing. Though DOJ said it does not normally oppose such requests as an amicus brief, it nonetheless moved to block the brief, arguing it was untimely filed, in a May 19 memo. The surety groups consist of the Customs Surety Association, the Customs Surety Coalition, the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc. and the Surety & Fidelity Association of America.

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

Strike pin anchor importer Midwest Fastener and the Department of Justice signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty scope challenge in the Court of International Trade. In a May 19 reply, DOJ acknowledged that neither party challenges the remand results in the case. The original complaint challenged a scope ruling from Commerce that determined Midwest's strike pin anchors were covered by the scope of an antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China.

The Court of International Trade denied a stay of court proceedings in one antidumping challenge brought by South Korean steel exporter SeAH Steel, but it has yet to rule on a motion to stay in separate challenge by the same company. In a May 18 order, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves shut the door on the possibility of a stay in a case challenging the final results of the 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review of certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, but did not comment on a case challenging the 2017-18 administrative review of the same product. In the latter case, Choe-Groves filed a letter last week informing the parties that the court is considering a stay pending a final decision in the appeal of a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether a particular market situation (PMS) existed in South Korea for the subject merchandise during the 2015-16 review period (see 2105140028).

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

A case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination from aluminum extrusion importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply (see 2104300056)]) was consolidated with a similar case from Global Aluminum Distributor (see 2104280049), according to a May 17 order from the Court of International Trade. Both Hialeah and Global Aluminum argue that CBP's process of determining that the exporters evaded antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and the agency's own regulations.

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 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).

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.