CBP's failure to seek clarification from the Commerce Department on whether importer Vanguard Trading Co.'s surface products were subject to the antidumping duty order on quartz surface products from China as part of an AD evasion case was "arbitrary and capricious," Vanguard told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 4 complaint (Vanguard Trading Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00253).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 1 order stayed a customs fraud case against Zhe "John" Liu pending resolution of the ongoing criminal investigation of Liu. The civil case against Liu and importer GL Paper Distribution was filed at the trade court in July 2022, in which the U.S. alleged that Liu operated a scheme via a series of companies that imported steel wire hangers that were given false countries of origin. Liu allegedly created the companies for a transshipment scheme that involved sending wire hangers from China subject to antidumping and countervailing duties through Malaysia, India and Thailand in a bid to disguise their origin (see 2303160050). Judge Jane Restani stayed the government's case against Liu and GL Paper, ordering the parties to file a joint status report April 1 (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).
The U.S. is "in the process of recommending settlement" in a case from steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania regarding the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, the government and NLMK said in a joint status report at the Court of International Trade. The parties asked the court to allow them to file another joint status report in 30 days (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
Several Indian quartz surface product exporters and U.S. importers oppose a U.S. quartz countertop manufacturer's bid for an injunction to suspend liquidation of Indian quartz surface product imports more than eight months after the deadline. The U.S. manufacturer’s motion was prompted by the consolidated plaintiffs’ attempt to dissolve their own, similar injunction (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 1 stayed for 60 days a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions so the parties can conclude the voluntary remand process and "effectuate" Commerce's remand results. The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).
Japanese exporter Nippon Steel Corp. failed to exhaust its claim that Section 232 duties weren't included in the prices it charged to its unrelated U.S. buyers in a trio of the exporter's cases against three antidumping reviews of hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued. Filing a supplemental brief to the Court of International Trade on Dec. 1, Nucor said that Nippon Steel failed to raise the argument in any of the three reviews and failed to plead the claim "with sufficiency," thereby waiving the argument (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533, 22-00183, 23-00112).
The Commerce Department shouldn't have granted a de minimis antidumping duty rate to a respondent in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the domestic petitioner for the investigation argued in a motion for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Thai trailer wheel exporters and importers sought relief Nov. 20 from a Commerce Department final scope ruling that their products, whose components were made from Chinese-sourced materials, were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese trailer wheels (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).
Importer Click Heat filed a notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 29 in its customs suit regarding its heat packs. The importer filed the suit to challenge CBP's dismissal of its protest claiming the heat packs should receive first sale valuation. Counsel for Click Heat declined to comment (Click Heat v. United States, CIT # 21-00119).