Aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Enforce and Protect A investigations, becoming the latest to challenge the process for countering antidumping duty evasion. In an April 28 complaint, Global Aluminum said CBP's EAPA process violated procedural requirements and the importer's constitutional rights related to due process and excessive fines, and that CBP is unfairly subjecting a company to two EAPA investigations for the same conduct and entries. Separate from other EAPA complaints, Global Aluminum claims that the duties assessed via the evasion finding constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment for excessive fines.

An importer’s tariff classification challenge on machinery used in the recycling industry has been designated a test case, according to an order issued by the Court of International Trade April 28 (Vecoplan, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126). Filed by Vecoplan, the lawsuit challenges CBP’s classification of industrial size-reduction machinery, said the underlying consent motion to designate it as such. CBP had classified the merchandise under subheading 8479.89.9499 (other machine having an individual function, dutiable at 2.5%), while Vecoplan argues for classification under subheading 8479.82.0080 (crushing, grinding, screening, sifting, etc. machines, duty-free). Two other cases filed by Vecoplan seek the same result, and the importer has moved to suspend them under the new test case.

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

The Commerce Department’s failure to verify data submitted by an Indian exporter of forged steel fittings during an antidumping duty investigation conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic means the agency should be ordered to go back and reexamine the exporter’s zero rate, the petitioners from that investigation said in a brief filed April 26 seeking a Court of International Trade remand (Bonney Forge Corporation et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03837).

The scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders cannot be expanded to include goods that were not part of the International Trade Commission's original injury determination, Thai steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company argued in an April 27 reply brief to the Court of International Trade. Citing, among other things, the fact that the ITC's final injury determination did not cover tariff subheadings for dual-stenciled pipe, Saha seeks to overturn the Commerce Department's final scope ruling that dual-stenciled pipe is subject to antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #20-00133). Saha says the trade court is bound by the precedent of a 1998 Federal Circuit decision involving Wheatland Tube.

The Commerce Department essentially “committed fraud” against a Chinese shrimp exporter that had been revoked from an antidumping duty order but, because of Commerce’s own misspelling that the agency refuses to correct, found itself years later participating in an administrative review and being assigned an AD duty cash deposit rate, the exporter said in a brief filed April 26 at the Court of International Trade (Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03947).

Porsche Motorsports North America filed a motion for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade, hoping to sway the court that automobile repair tools and parts the company exported to Canada then brought back into the U.S. should return duty free. In the April 26 filing, Porsche argued for classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.85 -- the subheading granting duty-free access to goods returning to the states after having been exported for use temporarily abroad -- claiming the parts are “tools of the trade” of car racing.

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

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

Cases brought in the Court of International Trade that seek to challenge denied protests over granted exclusions to the Section 301 tariffs may eventually result in refunds for duties paid on excluded products, Ted Murphy of Sidley Austin said in an April 26 blog post. CBP is now “making its way through the incredible number of post-summary corrections and protests that were filed claiming refunds of Section 301 duties based on approved exclusions,” he said. “While most clients have had most of their refund requests approved, a handful of requests have been denied by CBP with limited explanation. Following up on the denials has not always produced satisfying results. As a result, we are filling (and have been seeing other firms file) suits” at the CIT.