Court of International Trade

A Court of International Trade case seeking Section 301 tariff exclusions for frozen tillapia fillets from China should be stayed until litigation is completed in the massive Section 301 litigation, the Department of Justice said in a July 26 motion to stay. The case, brought by Global Food Trading Corp., featured two protests on CBP's handling of the entries: one seeking reclassification of the fillets under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.00 and another seeking the Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. CBP approved the first protest but denied the second. DOJ now requests a stay of litigation over the second protest until a decision is reached and all appeals are concluded in the broader Section 301 challenge involving over 3,500 separate complaints. "It would be an inefficient use of the parties’ and the Court’s resources to litigate the defenses to the Second Cause of Action now, when the merits underlying plaintiff’s claim are being litigated in a separate proceeding, and have not yet come to finality," the motion said (Global Food Trading Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00263).

Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's use of surrogate data from Thailand in two antidumping administrative reviews into crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in two nearly identical July 28 rulings. The judge sought to bring the cases in line with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that Commerce's methodology was unreasonable. Commerce improperly continued to use Thai import data as a surrogate for data on a key input of the solar cells, Kelly said.

The Commerce Department should have disregarded petitioners' claims in a countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, said sole respondent to the investigation Tau-Ken Temir in a July 21 brief in the Court of International Trade. The petitioners' conflict of interest claim "lacked merit, not even colorable merit," to the extent that Commerce should have found the petitioners were interfering in the investigation, TKT said. The exporter seeks to have the court throw out Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).

The Commerce Department sought a voluntary remand in another Court of International Trade case over Section 232 tariff exclusion denials, on July 26, offering a remand schedule of four tranches, with the fourth to be submitted 325 days after a potential remand order. The case was brought by California Steel Industries, which challenged 193 exclusion request denials from Commerce and then offered the four-tiered remand schedule to address logistics concerns (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00015). The voluntary remand motion is one of many offered by Commerce which, following the JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States CIT decision, has been remanding other Section 232 exclusion request challenges (see 2107230038). Asked if it's the agency's policy to issue blanket rejections of the exclusion requests and then seek voluntary remands in CIT cases, a Commerce spokesperson said, "The Commerce Department does not comment on matters currently in litigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security reviews each exclusion request on a case-by-case basis."

Greenlight Organic accused the U.S. government of invoking various "evasive tactics" in avoiding providing sufficient answers to the company's requests for admissions (RFAs) in a Court of International Trade case over the importer's alleged misclassification of imports to skirt duties. In a July 23 motion to compel the U.S. to respond to Greenlight's 116 RFAs, the importer wants the court to force the government to issue responses and overturn its objections that the requests were "incoherent and prevented a meaningful response" (United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. et al., CIT #17-00031).

The Commerce Department continued to find that Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China in July 23 remand results. Following an October 2020 Court of International Trade opinion finding that Commerce had failed to sufficiently explain its ruling (see 2010190031), the agency took another look at the scope ruling and provided a more thorough explanation of its holding. For instance, Commerce said that the physical characteristics of the steel branch outlets are similar to the characteristics of the carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (Vandewater International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

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

The Labor Department continued to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs in July 22 remand results filed in the Court of International Trade. On May 4, the court remanded the case to the agency after Judge M. Miller Baker found that Labor failed to discuss or even reference the union's evidence of why the trade adjustment case was warranted in its determination (see 2105040032) (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).

Electralloy/G.O. Carlson will appeal to the U.A. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Court of International Trade decision denying it the right to intervene in two Section 232 tariff exclusion challenges, it said in two July 23 notices of appeal. Judge M. Miller Baker of CIT rejected the company's intervention bid since the company doesn't have a legally protected interest in the case, a direct relationship with the litigation where it would gain or lose by the judgment, nor any demonstration that its interests will not be addressed by the government defense (see 2105260037). The U.S. Steel Corporation also tried to intervene in various Section 232 challenges, and filed its own appeal of the denied interventions on July 22 (see 2107220041). The company filed two more notices of appeal in two other Section 232 challenges on July 23.

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