Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 23 stayed all recent cases filed at the trade court seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the lead cases on the legality of the tariffs.
The Commerce Department didn't improperly "relitigate" a negative injury determination on freight rail couplers from China in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on the same product, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 23. Judge Gary Katzmann said the second set of proceedings involving Chinese freight rail couplers differed from the first in three key ways: it covered different physical merchandise, it involved different countries of origin, and it involved a different period of review.
The Court of International Trade will be closed on Dec. 24 and Dec. 26 in addition to the holiday of Dec. 25, the court announced. For computing time and motions to enlarge, Dec. 24 will be considered a "legal holiday," the court said. In a previous order, the trade court said Dec. 26 also will be considered a legal holiday (see 2511030011).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. agreed to classify importer Jing Mei Automotive (USA)'s rear drive axle covers and front axle covers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.70.60, dutiable at 2.5%, according to stipulated judgments the government and Jing Mei filed in a trio of cases at the Court of International Trade (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT #'s 14-00281, 14-00060, 14-00003).
The Commerce Department was correct to, in its results on remand of a 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Chinese-origin passenger vehicle and light truck tires, grant exporter Shandong Linlong Tyre a separate rate, the U.S. said Dec. 15 (see 2508250042) (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00069).
The Court of International Trade did not err in classifying The Comfy, an oversized pullover imported by Cozy Comfort, as a pullover of Harmonized Tariff Schedule 6110 and not a blanket of heading 6301, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 19 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cozy Comfort v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1889).
The Commerce Department did not improperly "relitigate" a previous negative injury finding on freight rail couplers from China when it conducted its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into the same products less than two years after negative injury determination, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 23. Judge Gary Katzmann said the scope of the previous and present AD/CVD proceedings are different in three key ways: they cover different physical merchandise, concern different countries of origin and cover different periods of review, sufficiently distinguishing the proceedings. However, Katzmann remanded the AD/CVD investigations on the basis that Commerce improperly disclaimed the authority to modify the orders' scope language based on an argument from importer Wabtec that the petitioner's theory of injury isn't cognizable regarding freight rail couplers that are imported attached to new rail cars.
CBP stuck with its finding that exporter Kingtom Aluminio uses forced labor in manufacturing aluminum extrusions following a decision from the Court of International Trade that the agency failed to adequately explain its initial forced labor finding. CBP found that "Kingtom submitted its employees to situations that align with multiple [International Labour Organization] (ILO) indicators of forced labor" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).