The Department of Justice's argument that the president should be granted deference to determine whether the procedural boxes have been ticked when eliminating a tariff exemption would eliminate a key check on executive power, counsel for the Solar Energy Industries Association said during July 13 oral argument. The proceedings before Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann come amid SEIA's challenge to President Donald Trump's revocation of an exemption to Section 201 safeguard tariffs on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Commerce Department submitted its remand results to the Court of International Trade on July 12 in an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring, dropping one of the mandatory respondents from the review in response to a ruling in a separate case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT # 14-00135). Following multiple court decisions and remand results, proceedings in Fine Furniture's case were stayed pending the results of the Federal Circuit appeal in Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. United States. The eventual decision found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping order since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD order received de minimis duty rates in Commerce's final determination (see 2106020069). CIT lifted the stay and remanded the case to exclude Fine Furniture from the review and recalculate the rate for the separate respondents. As a result of Fine Furniture's departure from the review, and the other two mandatory respondents in the review having zero percent antidumping duty margins, the AD rate for all separate rate respondents would fall to zero percent, should the rate be sustained.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties for improper jurisdiction, in a July 14 opinion. The Federal Circuit found that TR International Trading Co., which filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision, could have instead challenged a denied protest under 1581(a) or a scope ruling under 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable. TRI had challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea, in a July 9 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett upheld the results after Commerce dropped its adverse inference against Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Hyosung Corporation when calculating their antidumping duty rate. The result left both respondents in the review with a zero percent duty rate.
The Commerce Department filed its remand results in the Court of International Trade on July 12 in a case over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antdiumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. The results mirror the redeterminations made in another case filed by the same company, SeAH Steel Co., in which Commerce dropped its finding of a particular market situation (see 2107010048). After the court said that there was not enough evidence to support the agency's finding that the Korean steel market was heavily subsidized and there was a global glut of key inputs for the oil tubes from China, Commerce no longer applied the PMS adjustment, but noted its disagreement with the court over how to weigh the evidence (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
President Donald Trump did not violate procedural timelines when he raised tariffs on Turkish steel from 25 to 50% in August 2018, beyond the 90-day deadline and 15-day implementation period for initial Section 232 tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 opinion. Reversing a Court of International Trade decision, the Federal Circuit threw a wrench in a key argument against certain Section 232 tariffs that action beyond the statutory timelines should not be allowed.
A group of surety associations should not be able to argue against when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," a group of domestic agricultural goods producers said in a July 8 amicus brief in the Court of International Trade. The brief was filed to oppose the surety associations' motion to intervene in the lawsuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
In a pair of decisions, the Court of International Trade upheld two remand results that strike pin anchors are not within the scope of the antidumping duty orders on steel nails from China and Vietnam. In one, CIT sustained the Commerce Department's third remand results that strike pin anchors are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China, in a July 12 opinion. The decision applied recent precedent from a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether masonry anchors imported by OMG are subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel nails from Vietnam (see 2008280039). In another July 12 opinion, the court sustained Commerce remand results finding that Fastenal Company Purchasing's zinc and nylon anchors "do not fall within the scope of Commerce’s antidumping order on certain steel nails from China."
The Court of International Trade granted a consent motion July 9 to stay proceedings in a case brought by Advantus pending the appeal of decisions made in two cases, ARP Materials, Inc. v. United States and Harrison Steel Castings Co. v. United States. Judge Miller Baker granted the stay until 30 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues its mandates in those two cases. ARP and Harrison have not appealed to the Federal Circuit but indicated that they would like to do so (see 2106110053).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: