The Court of International Trade on March 16 upheld the use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification in the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Commerce "easily" defeated respondent Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi's challenge because Teknik cited no authority requiring the agency to carry out a certain verification procedure during a global pandemic.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 dismissed a case on whether importer Root Sciences' cannabis cure extract recovery machines should be seized as drug paraphernalia after CBP and Root agreed to a settlement (see 2303070060). CBP agreed to release the merchandise to the importer, given the Court of International Trade's ruling in Eteros Technologies USA v. U.S., in which the court said that the U.S. can't seize or forfeit imports that are federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" but whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal at the state level (see 2209210034). Root agreed to drop the suit as part of the settlement (Root Sciences v. U.S., Fed Cir. # 22-1795).
Four U.S. steel companies failed to show that they had a right to intervene in a case contesting the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding on hot-rolled steel imports from Turkey, exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a March 14 motion. Erdemir said the companies -- Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises -- "blurred standards, omitted material facts of cases, and misrepresented the holdings of cases" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00349).
Exporter China Custom Manufacturing will file a motion for a rehearing and seek en banc review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision finding the company's solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, George Tuttle, counsel for CCM, told Trade Law Daily (China Custom Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
The Commerce Department can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 duties from an exporter's U.S. price in antidumping duty proceedings, raising the respondent's dumping margin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 15. Judges Richard Taranto, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said Trump's proclamation imposing the duties made clear that the Section 232 tariffs were meant to be added to any applicable antidumping duties. However, the appellate court clarified that this ruling only applies to Trump's Section 232 duties and not all presidential action taken under Section 232.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department dropped its particular market situation adjustment for the sales-below-cost test on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty case on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, resulting in a zero percent AD rate for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen, if the rate is sustained (Ellwood City Forge Co., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).
CBP properly classified Shamrock Building Materials' steel conduit tubing imports from Mexico as steel tubing and not insulated fittings, the Court of International Trade ruled March 13. Judge Timothy Stanceu said the "uncontested facts" show the tubing is not insulated and is therefore subject to 25% Section 232 steel tariffs.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: