Jacob Kopnick

The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by 24 importers challenging enhanced security fees (ESF) on goods collected by the Puerto Rico Ports Authority. Denying the petition on May 17, the Supreme Court ended the challenge of fees that importers claim cost more than $150 million. To collect the fees, PRPA contracted with Rapiscan Systems Inc., which conducted "non-intrusive scanning of shipping containers" entering Puerto Rico through the Port of San Juan. Despite a federal district court order enjoining Puerto Rico from collecting ESFs from operations not being scanned, Rapiscan, PRPA and Rapiscan's affiliate S2 Services Puerto Rico, continued to collect the ESFs for all cargo, including non-scanned containers. The practice only ended when the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals ordered PRPA to cease and desist from carrying out the collection of ESFs.

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's second remand results which, under court order, added the full amount of duty drawback adjustment to two companies' export prices and nixed two circumstances of sale adjustments in an antidumping case on Turkish steel. Judge Gary Katzmann in his May 20 opinion ruled against arguments from petitioner Nucor Corporation that Commerce find another "duty neutral" methodology for allocating the drawback adjustment. Commerce had originally applied the adjustment to all production, effectively reducing the adjustment to export prices for Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane and Habas Sinai in an antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Turkey.

Importer Strategic Import Supply wants a reconsideration of its case in the Court of International Trade, seeing that CBP granted a nearly identical protest to the one that was the subject of dismissal in an April 21 opinion. In a May 19 motion for reconsideration, Strategic Import Supply argued that CBP's recent decision to assess a lower countervailing duty rate on imports of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China is new evidence that the underlying protests in the CIT case were timely filed and that CBP acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

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

A group of surety trade associations' attempt to file an amicus curiae brief in support of American Home Assurance Company in the Court of International Trade hit a snag when the Department of Justice opposed their filing. Though DOJ said it does not normally oppose such requests as an amicus brief, it nonetheless moved to block the brief, arguing it was untimely filed, in a May 19 memo. The surety groups consist of the Customs Surety Association, the Customs Surety Coalition, the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc. and the Surety & Fidelity Association of America.

The Court of International Trade denied a stay of court proceedings in one antidumping challenge brought by South Korean steel exporter SeAH Steel, but it has yet to rule on a motion to stay in separate challenge by the same company. In a May 18 order, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves shut the door on the possibility of a stay in a case challenging the final results of the 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review of certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, but did not comment on a case challenging the 2017-18 administrative review of the same product. In the latter case, Choe-Groves filed a letter last week informing the parties that the court is considering a stay pending a final decision in the appeal of a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether a particular market situation (PMS) existed in South Korea for the subject merchandise during the 2015-16 review period (see 2105140028).

Judge Claire Kelly at the Court of International Trade probed the Commerce Department's process of determining whether surrogate country data is aberrational in antidumping cases, during May 19 oral arguments. In a case where she granted a motion for reconsideration following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling on a nearly identical issue, Kelly questioned Commerce's lack of clear criteria and "know it when I see it" approach.

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

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corporation along with consolidated plaintiff Husteel Co., Nexteel Co., AJU Besteel and Iljin Steel Corporation, argued against a government motion in the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case until the Federal Circuit rules on a similar question in a separate case. In a May 17 joint opposition brief, the plaintiffs said that the Department of Justice failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the Federal Circuit case, doesn't argue that it would be "irreparably injured" without a stay, and doesn't consider that there is a fair chance the plaintiffs would be injured by the stay.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China, backing the Commerce Department's addition to the scope in its final determinations of language covering Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) chrome-covered wheels. In a pair of opinions, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce had authority to determine the scope of its investigations, and found that the agency "provided adequate explanation" for its decision to include PVD chrome wheels. However, Katzmann did remand the cases due to Commerce's retroactive imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties, instructing the agency to assess the duties from the final scope memo that made the scope changes, and not the date of the preliminary determination.