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).

Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi accused the Commerce Department of a "severe abuse of discretion" by rejecting entire questionnaire responses because certain parts were filed 21 minutes and 87 minutes late in an antidumping and a countervailing duty investigation, respectively. Celik Halat says Commerce should not have applied adverse facts available to its exports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey due to the late filings in two May 28 motions for judgment. (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

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

The Commerce Department acted within its authority when it decided not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to an importer’s motion for judgment in the case.

South Korean wind tower maker CS Wind didn't receive any special benefit from the Import Duty Exemptions on Raw Materials for Exported Goods program and actually overreported information on its raw material inputs, making the application of adverse facts available improper, the Department of Justice argued. In a May 26 reply brief, DOJ responded to a challenge from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition claiming that the Commerce Department erred in not applying AFA to CS Wind in a countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam. WTTC argued that certain inputs of steel plate, a raw material in the wind towers, could have actually been imported instead of made in Vietnam (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT #20-03692).

In complying with a May 25 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia order to remove the “Communist Chinese military company” designation from Chinese consumer electronics giant Xiaomi, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a FAQ May 27 saying that the prohibitions under the designation “do not apply with respect to Xiaomi.” The Defense Department and Xiaomi jointly moved to drop the label after District Judge Rudolph Contreras said it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and was made on insufficient evidence (see 2105120047). To date, two other companies so labeled have challenged the designation in the D.C. district court, and one, Luokung Technologies, has been granted a preliminary injunction.

A trailer with auto parts and tools exported to Canada to support Porsche race teams and then returned by Porsche does not qualify for duty-free treatment as “tools of the trade” under subheading 9801.00.05 because the tools were never declared to CBP, and the parts don’t qualify as tools, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed May 26 responding to Porsche’s motion for judgment in the case (see 2104270030).

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

The Court of International Trade on May 27 upheld remand results from the Commerce Department that reversed a scope ruling that included ready-to-assemble kitchen cabinets in antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China. While the agency continued to hold the request for the scope ruling was specific enough, despite concerns in his initial remand from Judge Gary Katzmann, Commerce on further examination found that the scope requests lacked sufficient supporting evidence and explanation.

Tool retailer Stanley Black & Decker filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, hoping to piggyback on a recent decision striking down the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives," according to a May 27 complaint. The decision, PrimeSource Buildnig Products, Inc. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-00032, found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding the Section 232 tariffs onto derivative products (see 2104050049). A three-judge panel at the court made the decision, ultimately finding that only PrimeSource would be granted refunds for payments made toward the 25% steel derivatives tariffs. While the decision stopped imposing the tariffs for imports and unliquidated goods, it found that it would only grant refunds on a per-case basis. The company is seeking a refund with interest for any payments made toward the duties.