The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on July 5 in importer PrimeSource Building Products' suit on President Donald Trump's move to expand Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. The move comes after the court rejected PrimeSource's request to stay the mandate pending a final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court on any petition for a writ of certiorari (see 2306270037). In the case, the Federal Circuit said that Trump legally imposed the tariffs beyond procedural time limits, ruling that such action can be taken if it is in line with the original tariffs' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The duty drawback methodology applied by the Commerce Department to Turkish exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret is "fundamentally flawed" and cuts against the statute's plain language, antidumping duty petitioner Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade in a brief on Commerce's remand results on the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
Neither DOJ nor the Commerce Department provided a definition of the term "easement" in relation to Commerce's finding that a "conditional easement" exempting input supplier Nur Gemicilik from paying rent on land was a good provided by the Turkish government and subject to a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret argued in a reply brief (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, CIT # 22-00149).
DOJ defended the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on exporter Grupo Simec in an antidumping duty review due to Simec's failure to timely submit all of the information requested. In a June 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that even though it granted several extensions to Simec so the company could file its initial and supplemental questionnaires, the exporter failed to timely submit the information in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
Tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente failed to address many of its claims before the Commerce Department in a case on the agency's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation after the termination of a suspension agreement, the government said in a reply brief. Issuing the brief after the trade court said Bioparques has the jurisdiction to challenge the decision, the U.S. addressed the remainder of the exporter's eight claims, arguing that Commerce's continuation of the investigation was "properly conducted" (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT # 19-00204).
Petitioner Says Commerce Rightly Excluded Door Thresholds as Ineligible for Finished Merch Exclusion
The Court of International Trade should not have found that importer Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds were excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. The committee said that both the Commerce Department and the Federal Circuit have repeatedly said that the scope's descriptions of "extrusions" covers aluminum extrusions incorporated into assemblies (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).
Importer Amsted Rail Co. filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal in a conflict-of-interest suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the International Trade Commission for not barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an AD/CVD injury proceeding. The Court of International Trade previously dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that the case could potentially be refiled once the injury determination wraps up (see 2211160057) (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on June 30 granted importer Environment One's bid to dismiss its case seeking Section 301 refunds. The case concerns 31 entries classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8536.50.7000, a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 tariffs. Environment One filed a protest challenging the liquidation, claiming a Section 301 exclusion granted after entry. The company then took to the trade court to claim that the government violated the law by creating a protest requirement for Section 301 refunds despite that statute applying to only certain CBP decisions (see 2210260011) (Environment One v. United States, CIT # 22-00124).
Surety firm American Service Insurance Co. moved to dismiss its customs case at the Court of International Trade. American Service Insurance, serving as a surety for New Image Global, filed the case to contest how CBP weighed its tobacco products and cigar wraps classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2403.91.2000, dutiable at $24.78 per pound. (American Service Insurance Co. v. United States, CIT # 16-00122).