Jacob Kopnick

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

The Commerce Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by using the same "boilerplate language" used in every Section 232 exclusion request denial when axing CPW America Co.'s bid for relief from the national security tariffs, the company said in a July 19 complaint. By filing suit in the Court of International Trade, CPWA becomes yet another steel importer to challenge what it deems the unlawful denial of a request for exclusion from the Section 232 tariffs. The importer says that Commerce erred in issuing the denial by failing to "meaningfully consider" the evidence submitted by CPWA and find that there were no overriding national security considerations in granting the exclusion request (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 20 backed the Commerce Department's initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty, saying it was supported by substantial evidence. Reversing a ruling from the Court of International Trade, the appellate court held that CIT erred in backing Commerce into adjusting the post-sale price by the entirety of the penalty cost since the customer was not aware of the methodology by which the amount of the penalty was to be determined. The decision brought the antidumping margin for mandatory respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Vicaret's above de minimis to 5.11%.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in a July 19 ruling the Court of International Trade's denial of a challenge to a 2020 amendment to an antidumping duty suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico. The trade court had in June 2020 denied CSC Sugar's bid to vacate the suspension agreement amendment. The Federal Circuit upheld the decision without opinion.

A spice company's challenge to a $50,000 penalty for failing to export a shipment of tamarind from Mexico was dismissed from the Court of International Trade for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Timothy Stanceu said in a July 19 opinion. CIT found that the case was untimely filed in the court and that the complaint is over a Food and Drug Administration decision merely carried out by CBP.

The Court of International Trade again rejected the Commerce Department's attempt to make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping case, according to a July 19 opinion. Yet again, the court said that such adjustments, resulting in alternative cost methodologies, are reserved for constructed value and not normal value because sales used when calculating normal value must be carried out in the "ordinary course of trade."

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's July 13 decision in favor of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff increase for Turkish steel past the 105-day deadline set by statute may be a serious setback for Turkish steel exporters (see 2107130059), but what it means for the remaining litigation challenging the president's authority under Section 232, Section 301 or any other statute granting the executive tariff powers is less clear, lawyers said in the days following the decision.

The Commerce Department was justified in continuing to apply total adverse facts available in an antidumping case after a Court of International Trade remand since the respondent failed to accurately report control number-specific U.S. sales and factors of production data when it could have "easily" done so, case petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a July 9 reply brief. Doubling down on Commerce's arguments, the catfish farmers said the court should sustain the remand results in the case over the final results of the 14th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).