The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. agreed to liquidate hoverboards imported by 3BTech under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8711.60.000 and exclude the goods from Section 301 China tariffs under secondary subheading 9903.88.17. 3BTech and the U.S. filed a stipulated judgment in the importer's test case on the issue, which resolves the spat in favor of 3BTech (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).
Attorneys at Grunfeld Desiderio filed an application for a temporary restraining order last week against the liquidation of entries in various cases that were assessed tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In its response filed on Dec. 16, the U.S. repeatedly cited the Court of International Trade's recent decision to deny an injunction against liquidation in other cases seeking IEEPA tariff refunds on the grounds that the trade court has the power to order reliquidation of finally liquidated entries in Section 1581(i) cases (see 2512150029) (Strato Technology Solutions v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00322).
In oral argument before Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett, parties grappled with how much the Commerce Department was required to consider the original record of its review of the countervailing duty order on Canadian softwood lumber -- which has been subject to litigation since its results were published in 2019 (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).
The United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement established a "double substantial transformation" test to qualify for preferential tr eatment under the FTA, the U.S. argued in a cross-motion for partial summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The controlling authority regarding the test is General Note 30 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and not, as importer JBF Bahrain has argued, the executive agreement between the two countries or a side letter on tariff classification, the U.S. said (JBF Bahrain v. United States, CIT # 23-00067).
In remand results published Dec. 15, the Commerce Department maintained its refusal to grant exporter Dingsheng Aluminum Industries Group a double remedies adjustment in its countervailing duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).
The Commerce Department failed to adequately support its finding that circular welded steel pipe from Vietnam made with hot-rolled steel from South Korea, India or China circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel pipe from the three countries, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 16.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 again remanded the Commerce Department's countervailing duty expedited review of softwood lumber products from Canada. After multiple remands, the sole remaining issue concerns the calculation of the CVD rate for respondent Les Produits Forestiers D&G and its cross-owned affiliates, including Les Produits Forestiers Portbec. Specifically, the issue is the method of calculation used to adjust for the amount of lumber D&G and Portbec bought from unaffiliated suppliers when determining how much of the suppliers' subsidies were attributable to D&G. Barnett held that Commerce abused its discretion in the most recent remand by declining D&G's request to reopen the record to provide additional information to help distinguish sales affected by the subsidies. The judge said finality concerns don't overcome this failure.
The Court of International Trade's CM/ECF system will undergo maintenance on Dec. 18 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. Dec. 19 ET, and on Dec. 20, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET, the court said. During this time, access to the CM/ECF system may be "intermittent," the court said.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: