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

Truck and bus tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. cited a recent Court of International Trade opinion to argue that it should be given an individual dumping rate in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China, in an April 30 notice of supplemental authority. Drawing on CIT's April 29 opinion in Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. U.S. (see 2104300079), Guizhou claimed that an argument it made in its own case in CIT directly mirrors one accepted by the court about how de facto government control is determined by the Commerce Department.

The Court of International Trade on May 3 granted the Commerce Department’s request to reopen its 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Commerce had requested remand of the final results because a CIT decision issued in a separate case in December 2020 ruled against the agency’s application of a particular market situation finding under similar circumstances.

The Department of Justice wants an entry of plywood imported from China scratched from a customs challenge in the Court of International Trade by BRAL Corporation, since the importer failed to file a protest against the entry's liquidation (BRAL Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00154). In a May 3 memo in support of a partial motion to dismiss, DOJ said the entry, one of 12 in dispute in the case, was reliquidated twice by CBP as the agency attempted to sort out the antidumping and countervailing duties applicable to the plywood imports. Since BRAL did not protest the second reliquidation, yet challenges it in court anyway, the entry should be dismissed from the case for lack of jurisdiction, DOJ said.

A nail importer and the Justice Department have agreed that judgment should be awarded in favor of the importer and the Section 232 tariffs on "derivatives" paid by the importer should be refunded, according to a joint status report filed April 30 (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 20-00037). Oman Fasteners and DOJ say the Court of International Trade's recent decision in a case involving PrimeSource is "parallel and substantially similar" to the main issue in Oman Fasteners' lawsuit (see 2104050049). Oman Fasteners and DOJ urged the court to rule in favor of the exporter on the question of the timeliness of the tariff expansion but to dismiss Oman Fasteners' remaining claims. Oman Fasteners also moved that the court “order other appropriate relief, including terminating Plaintffs' obligations to post continuous bonds to cover duties enacted pursuant to” the president's decision to expand the tariffs. Oman Fasteners also filed an unopposed motion for entry of final judgment in the case.

Cannabis processing equipment importer Root Sciences accused the Department of Justice of playing "judicial keep away" with particular customs cases, in an April 30 response to the government's motion to dismiss. Arguing to keep jurisdiction of its case under the Court of International Trade, Root Sciences made the case for why its challenge of the deemed exclusion of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine should remain in the trade court and why DOJ's arguments against that position are disingenuous.

Tesla filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, becoming the latest company to join the litigation involving more than 3,700 other cases. In an April 30 complaint filed with the Court of International Trade, Tesla, as an importer of goods subject to the Section 301 tariffs, launched its lawsuit, which will be subject to an automatic stay pursuant to a recent administrative order from the court (see 2104290048). The order pauses all filings challenging the tariffs that are not placed under the HMTX and Jasco Products test case.

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

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

The Court of International Trade on April 29 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. Upholding the agency's application of adverse facts available to Indian steel producer Uttam Galva Steels in Commerce's 2016 review, Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to apply full AFA to Uttam Galva and not to the other mandatory respondent in the case, JSW, because Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry Ltd. (LSIL).