Porsche Motorsports North America failed to show that its exported, then reimported, trailer with auto parts and tools qualifies for a particular Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading that would have allowed it duty-free treatment, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 reply brief. Since Porsche acknowledged that certain articles it brought in from Canada had not originally been exported from the U.S. to Canada, the shipment fails to meet the standard for Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 9801.00.85, DOJ argued (Porsche Motorsports North America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00182).

Steel producer Nucor Tubular Products Inc. will appeal a June 24 Court of International Trade opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a July 15 notice of appeal. The decision sustained the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review (see 2106240028). In particular, the case, originally brought by Dong-A Steel Co., concerns the 2016-17 antidumping administrative review of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. The case marked yet another instance of the PMS determination having been made on insufficient evidence since Commerce used "substantially the same record evidence" (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, CIT #19-00104).

The Commerce Department must further explain its use of a statistical test when using its differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty investigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 15 opinion. Partially remanding an antidumping investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea, the Federal Circuit questioned Commerce's use of the "Cohen's d test" to discover targeted or masked dumping.

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

Importer Amoena USA Corp. wants the Court of International Trade to find that its mastectomy brassieres of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.10.90, dutiable at 16.9%, should properly be classified as the duty-free subheading of 9021.39.0000, according to a July 14 complaint. The former subheading covers "other brassieres of manmade fiber," while the importer's preferred subheading covers "Orthopedic appliances artificial parts of the body; parts and accessories thereof: Other artificial parts of the body and parts and accessories thereof: Other." Mastectomy brassieres are an accessory for artificial breasts for women who have had mastectomies. The brassieres are used to hold the artificial breast in position and are predominantly sold in medical settings, the complaint said. Since they are "principally used as accessories of artificial breast forms" they should be classified in Chapter 90 of the HTS, Amoena said (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties, for improper jurisdiction, in a July 14 opinion. The Federal Circuit found that TR International Trading Company, which filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision, could have instead challenged a denied protest under 1581(a) or a scope ruling under 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable.

The Commerce Department wants a partial remand of its final determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, to reconsider whether it erroneously identified an upstream subsidy in the case as an export subsidy. In a July 9 motion for partial remand in the Court of International Trade, the government defense said that it wants the chance to review this determination to see if an error was committed and to potentially recalculate the resulting countervailing duty rate for the plaintiff in the case, PT. Kenertec Power System, which received the all-other respondents rate in the investigation (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, CIT #20-03687).

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a case brought by Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, challenging the denial of its request for an exclusion from Section 232 duties, in a July 12 order. In the joint motion requesting the stay, counsel for Allegheny said that the government defense reported to the plaintiffs that it was "engaged in internal discussions concerning disposition of this case." The government plans to wrap up the discussions and discuss the results with the plaintiffs in the following week, and said that any resulting status report or motion would be filed "as soon as practicable." Proceedings in the case are stayed until July 21 (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

The Department of Justice's argument that the president should be granted deference to determine whether the procedural boxes have been ticked when eliminating a tariff exemption would eliminate a key check on executive power, counsel for the Solar Energy Industries Association said during July 13 oral argument. The proceedings before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann come amid SEIA's challenge to President Donald Trump's revocation of an exemption to Section 201 safeguard tariffs on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

The Commerce Department submitted its remand results to the Court of International Trade on July 12 in an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring, dropping one of the mandatory respondents from the review in response to a ruling in a separate case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT # 14-00135). Following multiple court decisions and remand results, proceedings in Fine Furniture's case were stayed pending the results of the Federal Circuit appeal in Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. United States. The eventual decision found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping order since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD order received de minimis duty rates in Commerce's final determination (see 2106020069). CIT lifted the stay and remanded the case to exclude Fine Furniture from the review and recalculate the rate for the separate respondents. As a result of Fine Furniture's departure from the review, and the other two mandatory respondents in the review having zero percent antidumping duty margins, the AD rate for all separate rate respondents would fall to zero percent, should the rate be sustained.