The Court of International Trade rejected a bid by Mexican tomato growers for an injunction halting the Commerce Department’s withdrawal from an antidumping duty suspension agreement, in a decision issued June 6. The Mexican growers had asked CIT for a court order stopping Commerce from suspending liquidation, collecting cash deposits and resuming its 1996 AD duty investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (see 1905140026), at least while the trade court considers the growers’ broader challenge to Commerce’s withdrawal from the 2013 accord (see 1905100054). CIT ruled that the Mexican growers are unlikely to prevail in the broader case, because Commerce likely acted within its authority to voluntarily withdraw from suspension agreements with 90 days’ notice. It also said the growers did not prove irreparable harm or that the hardships to the growers outweigh the hardships to domestic industry.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 27 - June 2:

The Supreme Court should decline to take up a constitutional challenge of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products, the U.S. government said in a brief filed May 28 with the court. “Algonquin,” the 1976 Supreme Court decision upholding Section 232 that the Court of International Trade cited as precedent when it ruled against the challenge (see 1903250032), “was correctly decided, and it is consistent with this Court’s more recent nondelegation precedents,” the government said. “In any event, certiorari before judgment is an exceptional procedure, and petitioners identify no sound reason for this Court to deviate from its usual practice of deferring any review until after the court of appeals has issued its decision,” it said. The American Institute for International Steel, which brought the lawsuit, has appealed directly to the Supreme Court, in a bid to skip the usual route through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see 1904160027). The group waived its right to reply to the government’s brief in a May 29 filing.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 20-26:

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 13-19:

The Cato Institute and the National Foreign Trade Council recently filed amicus briefs supporting the American Institute for International Steel’s Supreme Court challenge of the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products. In a brief filed May 17, Cato argues that the iron and steel tariffs themselves exceeded the authority provided in Section 232 and ignored factors considered in Section 232 actions taken in the past. The NFTC went a step further in a brief filed the same day, calling the underlying law itself the “rare sort of unbridled delegation of authority that transgresses constitutional bounds.” An agricultural exporter has also filed an amicus brief in support of AIIS, citing the harm from retaliatory tariffs (see 1905210024).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 denied a bid by the U.S. government to lift an injunction banning imports of fish products from Mexican fisheries engaging in practices that threaten the vaquita porpoise (see 1807260039). The government had told CAFC that it has submitted several briefs to the Court of International Trade showing that the injunction is no longer necessary because of actions taken by the U.S. and Mexican governments, including a finding that a Mexican Gulf of California corvina fisheries doesn’t meet comparability requirements and should be declared ineligible for importation (see 1812030020). The Federal Circuit said CIT should have the chance to review the briefs before the appeals court takes up the case. “We are not convinced by the Government that the factual circumstances have changed so much as to warrant our dismissal of the preliminary injunction before reconsideration by the CIT,” it said.

A chemical importer will not face penalties under the False Claims Act for an alleged antidumping duty evasion scheme, after a jury found in its favor in a trial at the Central California U.S. District Court. Unichem Enterprises and its owner, Tony Hang, were not proven to have violated the False Claims Act in a case brought by a whistleblower, David Ji, who based it on manifest data, the jury said. According to court documents, Ji had said Unichem imported glycine that its Chinese supplier helped it mislabel as glucosamine, which is not subject to AD/CV duties. Unichem and Hang had contended that Ji lacked enough evidence to prove his claims, and was pursuing the case “to put a competitor and former employee out of business.”

The Court of International Trade on May 14 sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling finding m masonry anchors imported by OMG are not covered by antidumping duties on steel nails from Vietnam. Commerce had initially found the anchors subject to duties but, in response to a May 2018 CIT decision that found masonry anchors are not nails (see 1805290053­), reversed its stance, albeit “under respectful protest.” “OMG’s zinc anchor is simply not a nail ‘constructed of two or more pieces’ because … it does not function like a nail and because record evidence demonstrates that anchors like OMG’s are considered a separate type of product from nails by the relevant industry,” CIT said as it sustained the re-determined scope ruling.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 6-12: