Jacob Kopnick

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

The Court of International Trade erred in relying on "bypass" liquidations when evaluating the established classification treatment of bicycle seat imports, Kent International argued in a May 21 reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When determining whether an established classification treatment exists, CBP can only consider liquidations in which a Customs officer has made a determination, it said. In this case, CBP incorrectly looked at bypass liquidations, which are processed automatically without review by a CBP officer, it said. The bike seat importer said in its appeal that the imported goods should be classified according to CBP's established treatment in subheading 9401, which would allow them to enter duty-free (Kent International, Inc., v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1065).

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

Building materials company Bruskin International made its first arguments to the Federal Circuit in a challenge to a change to the scope during an antidumping duty investigation, claiming that the Commerce Department made numerous and significant procedural errors in the scope modification in question, in an opening brief filed May 14.

The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

CBP's failure to alert Fedmet Resources of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation or to publish public summaries in the proceeding violated the company's constitutional due process rights, Fedmet said in a May 21 complaint in the Court of International Trade.

GOWIN Semiconductor Corporation, a Chinese technology startup, is challenging its designation as a "Communist Chinese military company" (CCMC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to a May 21 complaint. In the complaint, GOWIN attempts to prove it is not operated by the Chinese military by showing that its governing board of directors is "comprised of nine private-sector executives, two of whom are U.S. citizens (the CEO and the President)." GOWIN goes on to argue that DOD's lack of notice to the tech startup of the designation and lack of evidence in coming to a conclusion on the label violates its due process rights. The firm also says it will suffer irreparable harm from the CCMC label, and in fact, already has. "By losing U.S. and global support as a result of the CCMC designation, GOWIN has lost and will continue to lose market share to similarly situated [semiconductor] companies, many of which are more mature and firmly established than GOWIN," the complaint said.

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

U.S. Steel Corp. told the Court of International Trade May 19 that the public release of the administrative record in a case involving Section 232 exclusions should entitle the company to the right to intervene in the case. “Among the reasons U. S. Steel cited in support of its right to intervene was the use and contextualization of factual information supplied by U. S. Steel to Commerce,” the company told the court. The Commerce Department's inadvertent released of this information means U.S. Steel's “fear has been realized,” the company said.

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