Jacob Kopnick

The Department of Justice requested in a June 3 filing that the Court of International Trade clarify what the correct standard of review is for the court's remand of a trade adjustment assistance case (see 2105040032). The clarification request comes after a May 4 CIT remand that found that the Labor Department failed to discuss or even reference the evidence of why trade adjustment assistance was necessary in its determination (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).

Three entries of crystaline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) products should not have been assessed antidumping and countervailing duties since the importer properly selected entry dates on its entry summary that preceeded the effective date of a scope ruling that found them covered by AD/CVD orders, Puerto Rico company Aireko Construction argued in a June 4 motion for summary judgment. Though Aireko had indicated the newly selected entry dates in a timely amendment to its protest, CBP ignored the amendment when it assessed AD/CV duties as if the entries had been filed after the scope ruling took effect, Aireko said (Aireko Construction LLC. v. United States, CIT #20-00128).

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

The Commerce Department properly adhered to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade by relying on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating a company's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping administrative review on solar cells, both the Department of Justice and plaintiffs in the case agreed in two filings of comments on the remand results. The change in surrogate data selection led to a dumping margin of 5.08% for mandatory respondent Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. and the separate rate respondents, many of whom are also plaintiffs in the case (Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00176).

CBP made an admissibility determination for an imported machine "designed for the recovery of cannabis crude extract from cannabis biomass," thus barring an order from the Court of International Trade to show cause against an expedited litigation track, the Department of Justice said in a June 3 reply brief. In a case brought by Root Sciences, the court was asked to consider whether CBP's decision to stop the import of the "hopper feed vessel" is a deemed exclusion or seizure. DOJ says it's the latter, thereby removing jurisdiction from CIT and moving it to the district court in which the seizure took place. Root Sciences said it was deemed excluded, giving CIT jurisdiction and reason to order DOJ to show cause why the deemed exclusion can't be lifted and an expedited litigation track can't be adopted (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

Proceedings in a Court of International Trade case involving a first sale valuation for imports from a non-market economy will continue as planned and won't await a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a related case, Judge Mark Barnett said in a June 3 order denying a stay sought by apparel importer Imperia Trading. It argued that proceedings should be halted since the Department of Justice “relies heavily” on a March 1 CIT decision involving the first sale treatment of cookware imported by Meyer (see 2103020040). Barnett sided with DOJ, saying that "the court is not persuaded that the outcome of the appeal in Meyer Corp. ... will necessarily be determinative in this case." Imperia now faces a June 4 deadline to submit a motion for summary judgment barring an extension (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00142).

The Court of International Trade plans to bring about half of its staff back to its Foley Square location in New York by mid-July, Chief Judge Mark Barnett told Trade Law Daily. The court has not had a scheduled staff presence in its building since March 2020, with certain staff members entering the building on an ad hoc basis, the judge said. The goal is a "sustained reopening" with half of the employees continuing to telework for a few months beginning this summer.

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

Thai pipe exporter Blue Pipe Steel Center Co. filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings on June 1 in its Enforce and Protect Act challenge until a decision is received from a related case involving a scope ruling on the underlying antidumping duty order in the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe is hoping to reverse the affirmative determination that its dual stenciled pipe evaded antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Since a related lawsuit from Saha Thai is challenging a scope ruling that found that dual-stenciled pipe was covered by the AD duty order, Blue Pipe's case should wait until the scope matter is settled, the company said.

Guardian Insurance Company was found not to be liable for the losses of a food importer totaling over $500,000 that expired due to COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a May 24 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Since the stay-at-home orders that allegedly led to the seafood imports rotting exempted the food industry, Guardian was able to avoid liability for the food losses.