Cedar shakes and shingles are not covered by antidumping and countervailing duties on softwood lumber from Canada, the Court of International Trade ruled April 20 as it sustained a court-ordered rewrite of a Commerce Department scope ruling from 2018. Commerce had originally found the cedar shakes and shingles were subject to AD/CV duties (see 1810110040), but CIT had overturned that ruling in November 2019 (see 1911140048), finding the agency had failed to consider its previous scope treatment of cedar shakes and shingles under a series of previous AD/CV duty orders on softwood lumber. Commerce came back with a finding that the cedar shakes and shingles are out of scope, in part because of scope rulings under those previous AD/CV duty orders, and also because it unearthed language in the original petition for AD/CV duties that says cedar shakes and shingles were not intended to be covered by the AD/CV duty orders.

A furniture importer and its executives will pay more than $5.2 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit on their alleged evasion of antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture by way of misclassification as metal furniture, the Justice Department said in an April 14 press release. Blue Furniture Solutions and its successor, XMillenium, will pay $4,679,987 of that total, while former CEO Yingqing Zeng will pay $460,000 and former CFO Alex Cheng $90,000 to resolve their personal liability, DOJ said.

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

An increasingly frayed connection between the Harbor Maintenance Fee and its use for maintaining ports and harbors could bring the legality of the fee on importers back into question, said Simon Gluck & Kane lawyer Chris Kane in a LinkedIn post. The legal standard for user fees requires “a close connection between the cost to the government and the benefit provided to the user,” Kane said. Previous challenges failed to meet that standard, but it now seems clear that “government is taking more than it needs,” he said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 30 - April 5:

The Court of International Trade courthouse will be closed until further notice to limit COVID-19 exposure, said Clerk of the Court Mario Toscano in an April 2 notice. “During this time, and upon approval of the assigned judge(s), parties are able to participate in, and members of the public may listen to, proceedings via teleconference,” it said. “Access for the public may be precluded or limited when confidential information will be presented in the proceeding.” The court also posted information about teleconferencing on its website. “Prior to the day of the court proceeding, the Case Manager will provide the parties with the dial-in number and the access codes for participating in the proceeding via email,” it said.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 23-29:

The American Institute for International Steel has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in its challenge to the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs. The petition for certiorari asks, “Is section 232 facially unconstitutional on the ground that it lacks any boundaries that confine the President’s discretion to impose tariffs on imported goods and, therefore, constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the principle of separation of powers established by the Constitution?” If the case succeeds, “it would preclude the President from relying on section 232 at all,” the brief says. The Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit both ruled that Supreme Court precedent from the 1970s requires a finding that the tariffs are constitutional (see 2002280058). AIIS hopes to get a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case by the court’s summer recess, said its lawyer, Alan Morrison of George Washington University Law School.

A Pennsylvania chemicals company agreed to pay a $450,000 fine for failing to notify the Drug Enforcement Administration of certain imports and exports, according to a March 25 Justice Department news release. The company, Ungerer & Company, violated reporting obligations on a “number of occasions” after it completed international shipments of chemicals that can be used to “manufacture illicit controlled substances.” In addition to the fine, the company agreed to a three-year agreement with the DEA to implement remedial measures, including submissions of “certain delinquent forms on its shipments” and the implementation of a system to train employees to avoid future reporting violations. The company must also submit quarterly certifications to the DEA to prove it is complying with reporting obligations.

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of March 16-22: