The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a lawyer's appearance entry submission to not be in compliance with court rules. The court said that the entry for Willis Martyn, counsel for the U.S. in a case over the president's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, was not in compliance since he had not registered for an electronic filer account with the court's filing system. Martyn's contact information on the entry form also didn't match the information associated with his account (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1392). In November 2021, the Court of International Trade struck down the tariff exclusion revocation, holding that the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032).
Second Nature Designs accused the Justice Department of using delaying tactics in a tariff classification case involving dried botanicals imported in 2018. In a Feb. 18 filing, Second Nature alleged that DOJ waited nearly four years to file a motion for supplemental pleading in violation of the court's deadline. According to Second Nature, DOJ filed its answer to the case in April 2018 and then waited almost four years even though the required information was in DOJ's possession since it deposed Second Nature's president in Nov. 2018. Second Nature argued that the delay is "inexcusably untimely" and creates a "highly prejudicial counterclaim." The government can't substitute a new decision in litigation for the official liquidation decision of CBP, nor to demand increased or additional duties from the protestant, once the 90-day reliquidation period has passed, the company said.
The Court of International Trade dismissed three customs cases brought by California importer Mirror Metals in a series of three orders for lack of prosecution. All three cases were filed in February 2020 and concern CBP's assessment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on the company's various metal articles. Filed under Section 1581(a), the cases contested the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's denial of Mirror Metals' exclusion requests (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #20-00039, -00040, -00041). While the importer has two other nearly identical cases filed at CIT, it also has a case filed under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the BIS exclusion denials that the court has found to be the proper jurisdictional outlet. Most recently in that case, the trade court remanded the denials to BIS for further review (see 2111190056).
South Korean exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade March 2 to contest the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Dongkuk challenges Commerce's finding that the provision of carbon emission permits to mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel constituted a countervailable subsidy. The result of the review was a 0.56% CVD rate for Dongkuk, which participated in the review as a voluntary respondent (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00032).
Following oral argument over a question of whether a questionnaire submitted in lieu of verification constitutes verification in an antidumping matter, both the plaintiffs, led by Ellwod City Forge Co., and the defendant-intervenors, led by Metalcam, submitted follow-up briefs. Metalcam told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department acted within its discretion to issue the questionnaire instead of on-site verification. Meanwhile, Ellwood responded to the oral argument by arguing that it exhausted administrative remedies on this question, but that even if it did not, this should not bar consideration of the legal claims (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood, two plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, submitted a notice of supplemental authority saying the Commerce Department has shown it can verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) even without information from the Chinese government. Because Commerce has done so in a different CVD investigation following the submission of standard supplemental questionnaire responses, verification is possible in the current case, the plaintiffs told the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-03885).
The Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling request is not a judicially reviewable action, the Department of Justice said in its motion to dismiss a case brought by three companies at the Court of International Trade. CIT jurisdiction will instead be established at the end of a changed circumstances review requested by the plaintiffs, DOJ said (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A group of U.S. welded pipe manufacturers is appealing a Court of International Trade ruling that the Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112280030). American Cast Iron Pipe, Berg Steel Pipe, Berg Spiral Pipe, Dura-Bond Industries and Stupp along with Greens Bayou Pipe Mill, JSW Steel (USA), Skyline Steel, Trinity Products and Welspun Tubular joined the Feb. 25 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT decision was one in a long line of court decisions finding that the statute doesn't permit a PMS adjustment in this way (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #19-00056). This position was recently upheld by the Federal Circuit in Hyundai Steel v. United States and is currently being petitioned for a full court rehearing by the AD petitioner of the relevant order Welspun.