The Court of International Trade is set to hold oral arguments over a key relief question in the massive Section 301 litigation on June 17. Chief Judge Mark Barnett sent out four questions to the parties in a June 14 letter concerning the following: (1) how uncertainty over the court's authority to provide relief establishes that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without this relief, (2) cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that CIT did not determine appropriate relief, (3) how the first question is articulated by the Supreme Court decision Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council and (4) the court's authority to enter a money judgment instead of reliquidation in the event the plaintiff's preliminary injunction prevails. The oral arguments will be held over the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure (see 2106070017).

The Court of International Trade should stay liquidation of PrimeSource Building Products' imports of steel "derivatives" and reinstate the requirement of PrimeSource to monitor future derivative imports and maintain a sufficient continuous bond, pending an appeal of the steel derivative decision, the Department of Justice said in a June 9 filing.

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration is denied the right to join a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade as a plaintiff-intervenor, Chief Judge Mark Barnett declared June 11. "The motion is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with USCIT Rule 24," Barnett said in a text order. Defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to mention the administrative determination to be reviewed and the issues the proposed intervenor wants to litigate (see 2106090088) (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

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

The U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled oral argument for 10 a.m. June 17 via Webex on the preliminary injunction Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco last week asked for oral argument (see 2106070017). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The Justice Department opposes the injunction.

Even if the Commerce Department did not act within its authority when deciding not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on quartz surface products from India, the agency still had the requisite level of industry support and the authority to start the investigation anyway, petitioner Cambria Company said in a June 9 brief backing the Department of Justice's defense in a case at the Court of International Trade (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00127).

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration should be barred from intervening as a plaintiff-intervenor in a case challenging a countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from that country, petitioners Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon said in a June 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. The ministry's motion for intervention failed to state the administrative determination to be reviewed and the issues the intervenor wanted to litigate, the petitioners said. The ministry's brief contains only three “misnumbered” paragraphs that simply say it is an “interested party.” Also, since the ministry and the plaintiff in the case have the same counsel, “it is not immediately apparent how participation by [the ministry] could bring any different analyses or arguments to the Court on the very limited issues addressed by [the ministry] in the underlying proceeding” (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

Chinese exporter Changzhou Trina Solar Energy's case was severed from a consolidated action in the Court of International Trade because the other plaintiffs are appealing the trade court's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a June 9 order said. Trina originally filed its lawsuit in CIT to challenge the final results of the fourth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. As a result of the CIT decision, Trina's total CVD rate dropped from 9.12% to 2.93%. CIT also ordered entries related to Trina's case liquidated (Canadian Solar Inc. et al v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00184).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act administrative review on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, a June 8 order said. The two now-consolidated plaintiffs, Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group, were subject to an EAPA investigation for allegedly evading antidumping duties on pipe fittings from China by transshipping them through Vietnam. IPPG's case, filed under case number #21-00193, will be consolidated under Norca's case, #21-00192. Both parties alleged due process violations under the EAPA investigation and claimed that the AD order does not cover their imported products (Norca Industrial Co., LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00192).

An importer’s lawsuit claiming it should have been assessed AD duties at a lower import-specific antidumping duty rate has run into jurisdictional issues, and a recently filed amended complaint from the importer that was accepted by the Court of International Trade on June 9 aims to clear them up.