The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs after denying a petition for a full court rehearing. The appellate court previously dismissed the case, led by USP Holdings, in June, unconvinced of the importers' arguments that the Commerce Department in its underlying report was required to find an imminent threat to domestic industry and did not do so (see 2206090047). The appellants filed for the rehearing, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA, arguing that the authority to regulate international trade is a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress (see 2207220071) (USP Holdings v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).
The Court of International Trade failed to recognize that key facts in a customs fraud case are not in dispute, but if it had, the court "would likely have" come to a different conclusion over when the statute of limitations had run out for the U.S. to bring its case, defendants Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued. Filing a motion for rehearing Aug. 25, the defendants said the trade court committed an error when finding that a piece of evidence has to establish fraud for the statute of limitations to begin to run and not merely give allegations of misconduct to the government (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 text-only order granted a partial consent motion to consolidate two cases, one of which is a consolidated action brought by two importers, challenging a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation. The cases concern CBP's finding that American Pacific Plywood, Far East American, Liberty Woods International and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping the goods through Vietnam. The complaints include counts against CBP's alleged due process violations and determination that all the imports were covered merchandise (see 2207200031). Earlier in August, the court consolidated the Far East and American Pacific Plywood cases. The U.S. then moved to consolidate the Far East and InterGlobal cases, arguing that it would promote judicial efficiency (see 2208230026). The cases were assigned to Judge Mark Barnett (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213).
The Court of International Trade denied plaintiff Nucor's motion for a stay in a countervailing duty case, finding that the steel producer's arguments were "not persuasive." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the stay in an Aug. 23 order, declaring a stay pending resolution of another action over the same countervailing duty review "would delay the just and speedy resolution of this litigation" (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assigned three cases to the same merits panel in a text-only note. The cases, led by Adee Honey Farms, Hilex Poly and American Drew, argue that the text of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 as enacted by Congress expressly requires that CBP distribute "all interest" associated with antidumping and countervailing duties to affected domestic producers. CBP contested this, arguing that delinquency interest is not included in CDSOA distributions. The Court of International Trade ruled in CBP's favor, finding that customs was right to deny payouts of delinquency interest (see 2206160074) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Court of International Trade should consolidate two cases -- one of which is already a consolidated action brought by two importers -- because they both are challenging the same Enforce and Protect Act determination, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 19 brief. The cases -- one led by Far East American, the other led by InterGlobal Forest -- argue that CBP wasn't authorized to initiate the EAPA investigation and that CBP violated the plaintiffs' due process rights, and should be consolidated to preserve judicial efficiency, the U.S. said (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).
The Court of International Trade should send back the Commerce Department's constructed value (CV) profit rate for antidumping respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) if the court does not uphold the de minimis rate calculated by Commerce on remand, BSM argued in Aug. 19 comments. Arguing that the remand results should be sustained, BSM, replying to the AD petitioner, continued to critique the CV profit rate in case the de minimis rate is not upheld (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).