Jacob Kopnick

A furniture importer's argument that the Enforce and Protect Act investigation finding it guilty of antidumping duty evasion was unconstitutional is not valid since the importer does not have a protectable interest, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. Since a protectable interest is necessary to claim a due process violation has been committed, Aspects Furniture International's constitutional arguments against the EAPA process fall flat, DOJ said (Aspects Furnitre International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

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

Global Aluminum Distributor backed Kingtom Aluminio's renewed bid to join a lawsuit over an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found it helped importers evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, while the original EAPA alleger, Ta Chen International, disputed Kingtom's motion for reconsideration in the case, in briefs filed July 7 (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198). Kingtom asks the Court of International Trade to reverse its own June 21 decision that Kingtom can't intervene in the case, brought by the importers found to have evaded AD/CV duties.

Among the recent plethora of lawsuits filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process for investigating evasion of antindumping and countervailing duty orders (see 2106070011), at least one invokes the Eighth Amendment, a rarely litigated part of the U.S. Constitution. Filed by trade lawyer David Craven on behalf of Global Aluminum Distributor, the lawsuit challenges EAPA penalties based on the amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

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

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want their challenge to the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India in the Court of International Trade stayed pending their appeal in a related case over the existence of a particular market situation for hot-rolled coil in India. The Federal Circuit appeal will also address the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available due to the plaintiffs' unaffiliated vendor's failure to submit costs of production data. Garg's July 6 motion to stay received the consent of the two defendant-intervenors, Nucor Tubular Products and Wheatland Tube, but will meet opposition from the Justice Department (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), a Hong Kong-based apparel company and part of the Esquel group of companies, filed a July 6 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List dropped (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd. et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo et al., D.C. Cir. #21-01798). The Trump administration put CJE on the list last year for alleged practices of using forced labor from the Muslim Uyghur minority population in China's Xinjiang region.

The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting the liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the tariffs, CIT said in a July 6 order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in to CIT and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed without being assigned to the master litigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the decision to issue the preliminary injunction (see 2107060077).

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

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration wanted to intervene in a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade in June. It was denied for failing to comply with CIT Rule 24 -- the rules governing intervention. In particular, the defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to state the issues it wanted to litigate (see 2106110029). Now, the ministry is back in CIT, filing a "renewed motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor" on June 16 (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).