Court of International Trade activity

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should find that pencil importer Prime Time Commerce did not exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to comment on the Commerce Department's remand results in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice told the appellate court. Despite its five attempts to obtain “gap-filling” information necessary to determine the correct antidumping rate in an administrative review, Prime Time did not comment on the case's remand results, meaning the importer stands in violation of the exhaustion doctrine that precludes judicial review, DOJ said in its reply brief (Prime Time Commerce, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1783).

The Commerce Department backed its own remand results in two Court of International Trade cases, citing the plaintiffs' agreement that the remand complied with the court's orders in two comments on the redeterminations. The cases, one challenging an antidumping duty scope ruling on a subset of steel trailer wheels from China, and the other challenging the countervailing duty scope ruling for the same goods, concern the date of imposition for the duties. In May, the court told Commerce to move the imposition date for the duties to the date of publication of the final determination rather than the date of the preliminary determination (see 2105180062). Commerce did so in its remand results (see 2106160026), also indicating that it will issue instructions to CBP to exclude plaintiffs Trans Texas Tire and Zhejiang Jingu Co.'s entries of physical vapor deposition chrome process wheels (PVD chrome wheels) entered between Feb. 25, 2019, and June 24, 2019, from the scope of the investigation (Trans Texas Tire, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00188, -00189).

Husch Blackwell and one of its international trade partners, Jeffrey Neeley, committed legal malpractice when they went too far in a filing at the Court of International Trade subjecting imports of wood furniture to antidumping duties, Wego Chemical Group said in an Aug. 9 complaint at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion filed by Neeley mistakenly requesting an injunction be lifted on all entries subject to an antidumping duty period led to Wego needlessly paying over $325,000 in customs duties, the company said (Wego Chemical Group Inc. v. Husch Blackwell LLP et al., S.D.N.Y. #21-06689).

Plaintiffs in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, led by Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in Aug. 11 comments, finding them in accordance with the CIT's instructions. The case stems from an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending the results of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD order received de minimis duty rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135).

Plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, that stand accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China vigorously challenged CBP's finding of evasion, in an Aug. 5 brief backing their motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In another case going after CBP's alleged violations of due process in Enforce and Protect Act investigations (see 2107010085), the plaintiffs argued that CBP's missteps are not merely procedural mistakes, but rather a "failure of essential process that led to profound harm." The violations are so egregious that they "would be unacceptable in any country that prides itself on democratic process -- and for the United States, they are a travesty," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03914).

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

Printed circuit board assembly importer Triumph Engine Control Systems moved to overturn the dismissal of four of its cases issued by the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 9 filing. Claiming that it clears the standard for reversing dismissals due to lack of prosecution set in the Supreme Court case Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the importer requested an extension of the time to remain on the Customs Case Management Calendar (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. U.S., CIT #19-00108, #19-00109, #19-00110, #19-00130).

Commercial airline operator NetJets Aviation's request for leave to reassert Section 1581(i) jurisdiction in a customs challenge should jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) be unavailable should be denied, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 10 comments at the Court of International Trade. Further responding to its motion to partially dismiss NJA's case, DOJ said that the court lacks jurisdiction for the spat under Section 1581(i) and that NJA fails to even allege that this jurisdiction is available in its response (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).

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