Two Court of International Trade cases from Optima Steel International should not be consolidated since they fall under different "jurisdictional provisions and standards of review," the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 5 brief. While one case challenges CBP's assessment of antidumping duties and thus falls under Section 1581(a), the other goes after the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions and therefore is under Section 1581(i). "In Court No. 21-00062, the question before the Court is whether CBP, in its ministerial role, properly assessed antidumping duties to the entries at issue pursuant to Commerce’s liquidation instructions," DOJ said. "Court No. 21-00327, however, involves the question of whether Commerce’s liquidation instructions were proper based upon the record before Commerce. Thus, the distinct operative facts and legal issues in the two actions weigh against consolidation" (Optima Steel International, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00062) (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

A Court of International Trade case over importer Greenlight Organic's alleged fraud in misclassifying its knit garments should be dropped since the statute of limitations ran out, Greenlight said in an Aug. 3 brief. After the court ruled in 2018 that the statute of limitations had some lingering questions, Greenlight said it has procured enough evidence for the court to now rule in its favor and that the U.S.'s fraud case is effectively time barred (United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. et al., CIT #17-00031).

The Commerce Department properly selected Mexico over Malaysia as the surrogate nation in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held in an Aug. 5 opinion. Ruling that Mexico served as a significant producer of identical merchandise and that the selection of the Mexican financial statements was backed by reasonable evidence, Judge Timothy Reif upheld Commerce's determination.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., a plaintiff in a Court of International Trade case over an antidumping administrative review on steel nails from China, will appeal the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it said in an Aug. 4 notice of appeal. Judge Leo Gordon said the Commerce Department has a right to apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production data on a control number-specific basis in antidumping cases (see 2106090048). Shanxi was one of the three mandatory respondents for the administrative review and received a total AFA duty margin of 118.04% (Xi'An Metals Import & Export Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00103).

The Commerce Department permissibly relied on total adverse facts available in an antidumping case in light of the Court of International Trade's orders, the Department of Justice argued in July 30 final comments on Commerce's remand results. The respondent, Hung Vuong Group, attempted to submit new factual information in the case before the remand was filed, but no such authority exists for this submission to be accepted, DOJ said (Hung Vuong Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Commerce Department unlawfully selected Malaysia as its surrogate country in an antidumping duty administrative review and the decision should be remanded by the Court of International Trade for reconsideration of selecting Romania instead, plaintiffs in a case challenging the review said in July 30 comments opposing the first remand results. Seeing as the remand itself recognizes the superiority of the Romanian data and acknowledges certain input data from Malaysia is aberrational, the court should hold that Commerce's reliance on Malaysia as the surrogate nation is unlawful, the plaintiffs said (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00007).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Amazon threw its hefty weight into the Section 301 litigation inundating the Court of International Trade, alleging in a complaint that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs are unlawful under the 1974 Trade Act, violate Administrative Procedure Act rules against sloppy rulemakings, and are unconstitutional because only Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to levy taxes. Amazon reported 2020 revenue of $386.1 billion and is believed now to be the second-largest Section 301 plaintiff by revenue behind Walmart, which sued the government March 8. Walmart reported $559.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. Both companies are the relatively few among the roughly 6,500 importer plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs on constitutionality grounds. Crowell & Moring is representing Amazon. Walmart’s attorneys are from Hogan Lovells. Both law firms have representatives that sit on the 15-member plaintiffs’ steering committee formed in late March to help manage the massive litigation.

The Commerce Department on Aug. 2 continued to find affiliation between the lone respondent in an antidumping duty investigation and one of its U.S. customers after voluntarily remanding the case to consider comments from the respondent. After clearing this procedural hurdle, Commerce maintained this determination in its remand results, accounting for the finding in the duty margin calculation using neutral facts available (OCTAL, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).