CBP made an admissibility determination for an imported machine "designed for the recovery of cannabis crude extract from cannabis biomass," thus barring an order from the Court of International Trade to show cause against an expedited litigation track, the Department of Justice said in a June 3 reply brief. In a case brought by Root Sciences, the court was asked to consider whether CBP's decision to stop the import of the "hopper feed vessel" is a deemed exclusion or seizure. DOJ says it's the latter, thereby removing jurisdiction from CIT and moving it to the district court in which the seizure took place. Root Sciences said it was deemed excluded, giving CIT jurisdiction and reason to order DOJ to show cause why the deemed exclusion can't be lifted and an expedited litigation track can't be adopted (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

The Commerce Department properly adhered to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade by relying on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating a company's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping administrative review on solar cells, both the Department of Justice and plaintiffs in the case agreed in two filings of comments on the remand results. The change in surrogate data selection led to a dumping margin of 5.08% for mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. and the separate rate respondents, many of whom are also plaintiffs in the case (Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00176).

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

Guardian Insurance Company was found not to be liable for the losses of a food importer totaling over $500,000 that expired due to COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a May 24 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Since the stay-at-home orders that allegedly led to the seafood imports rotting exempted the food industry, Guardian was able to avoid liability for the food losses.

Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.

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

The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents' rate no longer applies.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results that, unprompted by court order, raised the antidumping rate for Indian steel exporter Venus Wire Industries, in a June 2 opinion. Though Judge Mark Barnett had in November only ordered Commerce to further explain its use of partial AFA in the underlying review, Commerce also changed its calculations to raise the AD rate on Venus for its stainless steel bar exports from India from 5.35% to 24.6%.

The Biden administration doesn't have a timeline for its decision on whether to allow states to import drugs from Canada, according to a May 28 memo supporting a motion to dismiss a challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America had challenged President Donald Trump's administration for allowing states to bring in Canadian drugs as a measure to control costs. The memo said that because no specific program has been authorized for imports, the plaintiffs “cannot establish any actual injury” relating to the presidential decision (Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., D.D.C. #20-03402).

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