The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold an oral argument on Jan. 10, 2023, at 10 a.m. EST in a case on whether President Donald Trump illegally expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. According to the notice of oral argument, the court will hold the hearing in Courtroom 201 in the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington. In the case, the Court of International Trade said that Trump illegally expanded the tariffs to derivative products beyond the 105-day deadline to take tariff action that runs from the submission of a report from the commerce secretary. In Transpacific Steel v. U.S., however, the Federal Circuit said that Trump could take certain tariff actions beyond this deadline so long as it it was part of the original "plan of action" (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The Commerce Department in Nov. 17 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and Malaysian company Bravo Green's 2018 financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in an antidumping duty case (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00131).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Viewtech Inc. on Nov. 16 filed a notice of dismissal in 10 of its tariff classification cases at the Court of International Trade. Filed between 2008 and 2011, the cases concerned the classification of Viewtech's digital satellite receivers. CBP liquidated the entries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8528.12.97 or 8528.71.40, though the importer claimed they should be classified under subheadings 8528.12.92 or 8528.71.20 (Viewtech Inc. v. United States, CIT #s 08-00250, 08-00252, 08-00253, 08-00254, 09-00116, 09-00146, 09-00173, 09-00419, 10-00112, 11-00008).
The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied appellant PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a stay in a case on an antidumping duty review on steel nails from Taiwan. The U.S. opposed the stay, which would have stopped litigation until the resolution of Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., on the grounds that the stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" the appellant's desired outcome in Mid Continent (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear all claims brought by plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente concerning the Commerce Department's continued antidumping duty investigation after a suspension agreement was terminated, the plaintiffs argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00204).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Ruling against the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment when normal value is based on constructed value "could render the provisions Congress enacted to empower Commerce to address distortive" PMS adjustments "a dead letter in most" AD proceedings, petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief. Responding to the appellee Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s arguments for summary affirmance in the case, given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key opinion in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., Wheatland said that Commerce's PMS adjustment actually squares with Hyundai Steel (Saha Tahi Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).