The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).
DOJ asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a case concerning CBP's errant liquidation of its entries of softwood lumber for lack of jurisdiction, in a Dec. 8 motion. Fraserview failed to file a protest contesting liquidation of its entries within the 180-day window, DOJ said, but the company had an available and adequate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) if it had filed a protest and challenged its denial (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00244).
The Court of International Trade in a two-page judgment upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to grant Universal Tube and Plastic Industries a level of trade adjustment in an antidumping duty review. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the remand results after no parties filed comments on them.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 8 confidential opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In the remand results, Commerce stuck with its use of adverse facts available for respondent Cooper (Kunshan) Tire's and Shandong Longyue Rubber's alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2202090069). The trade court has long spurned the use of AFA over the EBCP, with one judge only recently upholding the use of AFA in this context (see 2209140029). Judge Timothy Reif now appears to be the second judge at CIT to find Commerce properly used AFA for the EBCP. Reif gave the parties until Dec. 15 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire v. U.S., CIT #20-00113).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Sun Ray Group and its owner, Jihua "Mike" Liu, face over $15 million in penalties for alleged fraud and lying on customs forms and underpayment duties on vegetable entries. A complaint at the Court of International Trade filed Dec. 6 by the DOJ says that Liu and Sun Ray avoided duties on 216 entries of dried and dehydrated garlic, onion and other vegetables, and also owe nearly $2 million in unpaid duties (United States v. Jihua "Mike" Liu, CIT #22-00330).
The U.S. cannot rely on the Commerce Department's post hoc rationalization of its decision to countervail glass subsidies in a countervailing duty review, plaintiff-appellants, led by Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that the government did not take new agency action in making its determination, showing a "kind of bait and switch decision-making" decried in a key Supreme Court case (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).