The Supreme Court on June 24 denied a petition from the American Institute for International Steel to hear the trade group’s challenge of the constitutionality of Section 232 tariffs on iron and steel products. AIIS and two steel importers had filed the Supreme Court challenge directly after the Court of International Trade found itself bound by precedent to rule in favor of the government (see 1904160027), despite some concerns that the president’s Section 232 authority may be overly broad (see 1903250032). The overall challenge will continue under an appeal filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, said AIIS lawyer and George Washington University law professor Alan Morrison.
Multiple companies are facing transshipment fines for sending Chinese goods through a special economic zone in Cambodia that is owned by China, Reuters reported on June 19. U.S. Embassy spokesman Arend Zwartjes told Reuters that “the Department of Homeland Security has inspected and fined a number of companies for evading tariffs in the United States by routing goods through Cambodia.” According to Zwartjes, "these companies are located in Cambodia’s Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone.” Neither the U.S. embassy in Cambodia CBP immediately returned a request for comment.
The Court of International Trade upheld on June 17 the denial by CBP of more than $276,275.12 in drawback claims from a video technology importer and exporter as untimely. The trade court found that, under CBP’s now-defunct 1993 drawback regulations, the date of filing is when a complete paper claim has been submitted, not when the electronic summary is transmitted. It also held CBP guidance documents did not give the wrong impression that no paper documentation was necessary for drawback claims.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 10-16:
A California federal court on June 10 declined to hand victory to a whistleblower suing his former employer for allegedly undervaluing imports of herbal supplements to evade payment of customs duties. Travis Kiro, a former account manager for Jiaherb, did not prove that Jiaherb knowingly mislabeled its shipments to pay lower duties to CBP, the Central California U.S. District Court said in the decision.
The Department of Justice indicted a group of alleged elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn traffickers, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said in a June 13 news release. The indictment names four individuals, two of whom were arrested in Uganda or Senegal, while two Kenyans "remain fugitives." Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said "the alleged enterprise, responsible for the illegal slaughter of dozens of rhinos and more than 100 elephants, was as destructive to protected species as it was lucrative." DOJ said the horns and ivory involved were valued at more than $7 million.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 3-9:
The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld a Commerce Department ruling that extended antidumping and countervailing duties to cover 5050-grade alloy aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968), but found Commerce applied those duties months too early without adequate notice.
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: