The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. Steel will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling that found the Commerce Department appropriately determined an Australian exporter didn't reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and was correct not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price (see 2206100066). U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff said in a July 27 notice of appeal. The case concerns the administrative review of the AD duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. CIT Judge Richard Eaton said the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser" (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #20-03815).
The Commerce Department illegally used total adverse facts available on the grounds that antidumping respondent Kumar Industries failed to fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Kumar said in a July 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's position that Kumar failed to hand over all of the information regarding its affiliation status is incorrect since the respondent gave "extensive information" on its affiliation status with two unnamed companies "at every occasion in the form and manner requested by Commerce," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
Angela Ellard, a deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, called on WTO member governments to deposit instruments of acceptance with the multilateral trade organization to help the recently negotiated fishery subsidies agreement enter into force. Speaking at a virtual Washington International Trade Association event July 28, Ellard laid out the path ahead for the full adoption of the fisheries agreement while reflecting on steps the WTO looks to take on helping countries fully implement the obligations tied into the agreement. The DDG also spoke of a fund provided for in the agreement which will help less developed countries with the notification and transparency elements of the deal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely.
The Government Accountability Office, in a July 25 decision, dismissed a protest from shipping container manufacturer Sea Box contesting the terms of a Defense Logistics Agency request for quotations (RFQ) for freight containers. Sea Box said the solicitation should have more information on the Buy American Act's requirement for domestic end products, but GAO ruled the protest doesn't cite any procurement law or regulation requiring the DLA to include such information in the solicitation.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S and importer Target General Merchandise reached a settlement over the proper classification of girl's glitter/fabric ballet shoes, the parties said in a July 26 stipulation of dismissal. The Court of International Trade then order the case be dismissed without providing any details as to the settlement. Target launched its case in 2017, though the matter sat on the customs case management calendar for over four years. The ballet shoes were entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6402.99.41 as oxford height footwear of the slip-on type, dutiable at 12.5%, though CBP liquidated them under subheading 6402.99.49, dutiable at 37.5%. Target, via its October 2021 complaint, laid out its case for the shoes to be classified under this first subheading (Target General Merchandise v. U.S., CIT #17-00007).
The Commerce Department had no legal grounds to find that Hyundai Steel Company received a countervailable benefit from the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights, Hyundai argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce ignored its own standard over port usage rights that says that these rights can be countervailed only if the benefit were "excessive," the brief said. The port usage rights afforded to Hyundai were given as payment for a debt to Hyundai and thus not a countervailable benefit, Hyundai argued (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
The Court of International Trade in a July 27 order denied plaintiff Second Nature Designs' bid for a test case and suspension of another action at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the U.S.'s opposition to the motion was denied as moot in light of the court's recent ruling in Cyber Power v. U.S., which found that the government does not have the legal authority to file a counterclaim in a customs case. Following the order, the two cases will continue separately (see 2207200052) (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT #17-00271).