The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case in which it dismissed a suit seeking to retroactively apply Section 301 tariff exclusions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit said that because a protest was not filed with CBP on the relevant entries, the court did not have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jursidiction, since jurisdiction would have existed under Section 1581(a) (see 2209060035). The appellants, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings, then attempted to file for a rehearing, arguing that the issue was not directly delegated to CBP, in violation of the Constitution under the major questions doctrine. This bid was rejected (see 2212020073) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 7 for leave to file a motion to dismiss in a case on an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, given that all the entries at issue have been liquidated. While Royal Brush does not oppose the motion for leave to file the dismiss bid, the appellant did tell the U.S. it will oppose the motion to dismiss itself. Prior to the appeal, the Court of International Trade had ruled CBP violated Royal Brush's due process rights by not providing adequate public summaries of confidential information (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #22-1226).
The Court of International Trade in a two-page judgment upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to grant Universal Tube and Plastic Industries a level of trade adjustment in an antidumping duty review. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the remand results after no parties filed comments on them.
The Commerce Department properly found countervailing duty respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows received synthetic yarn and caustic soda -- inputs of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge -- for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in a Dec. 8 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu found Commerce permissibly levied adverse facts available for the Chinese government's failure to respond to requests over the provision of the two inputs, and said the agency properly dropped its subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.
The World Trade Organization issued a series of four rulings Dec. 9 finding that the U.S. Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs set by President Donald Trump violated global trade rules. In the landmark rulings, a three-person panel found that the duties violated Articles I, II, XI and XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The dispute panel said the tariffs, which the Trump administration said were needed to maintain U.S. national security, were not "taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations," as mandated by Article XXI(b)(iii) of national security protections, so the duties violate the GATT.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department must reconsider its reliance on a financial statement in an antidumping review to calculate surrogate financial ratios, the Court of International Trade ruled in a confidential Nov. 28 opinion made public Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain the agency's conclusions that the statements were complete and publicly available. However, the judge did uphold Commerce's surrogate value for pocket coil innerspring units.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Sun Ray Group and its owner, Jihua "Mike" Liu, face over $15 million in penalties for alleged fraud and lying on customs forms and underpayment duties on vegetable entries. A complaint at the Court of International Trade filed Dec. 6 by the DOJ says that Liu and Sun Ray avoided duties on 216 entries of dried and dehydrated garlic, onion and other vegetables, and also owe nearly $2 million in unpaid duties (United States v. Jihua "Mike" Liu, CIT #22-00330).