The "text, structure, purpose, and history" of the Section 201 statute all reveal that Congress did not intend for the Court of International Trade's strict reading of the president's authority to modify safeguard duties, the U.S. argued in its May 11 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ is fighting to reverse a ruling at CIT that found that the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).

The Court of International Trade told the Commerce Department in a May 12 opinion that if it doesn't appeal its position on China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, it must explain why the court should not provide some sort of "equitable relief" including an injunction on the continued imposition of countervailing duties on the program. Judge Jane Restani also remanded Commerce's positions relating to its land value and ocean freight benchmarks while upholding the agency's specificity finding for the subsidization of energy in China.

The Commerce Department properly relied on a questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions, the U.S. argued in a May 10 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge, didn't take issue with the verification methodology until litigation and the methodology is in line with Commerce's actions in prior crises, so the questionnaire should be sustained, Commerce argued (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00007).

The Commerce Department will again consider ending Russia’s market economy status in antidumping duty proceedings, according to a prepublication version of a notice released May 9. After determining Russia still warranted market economy treatment in October during an antidumping duty investigation on urea ammonium nitrate solutions, Commerce is now beginning a changed circumstances review based on actions Russia has taken since its invasion of Ukraine in February.

The lawyer for a group of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' medical issues were not unexpected and thus do not classify as an "extraordinary circumstance," warranting an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, the U.S. argued in a May 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lawyer had been experiencing the medical issues for months and had actually carried out other tasks in the sunset review on the day prior to and on the day the submission was due, showing that the Commerce Department's rejection of the filing in question was justified, DOJ argued (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department properly found that the Chinese government and countervailing duty respondent Jangho Group failed to respond to the best of their ability on whether aluminum extrusions producers are "authorities," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 10 opinion. As a result, Commerce properly applied adverse facts available, Judge Leo Gordon ruled. Issuing his second opinion in the case after Jangho vied for a rehearing over its unaddressed "alternative arguments," Gordon also said that Commerce properly found that the provision of glass and aluminum extrusions below cost are specific subsidies.

CBP violated the law when it imposed antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 301 China tariffs, merchandise processing fees and harbor maintenance fees on importer Richmond International Forest Products' (RIFP's) hardwood plywood imports since the entries were made in Cambodia and not China, the importer said. In three separate but very similar complaints filed at the Court of International Trade, RIFP argued that CBP ignored evidence revealing that the hardwood plywood was made in Cambodia, thereby abusing its discretion when it imposed a host of duties on the products (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #21-00063, #21-00318, #21-00319).

The U.S. cannot demand Customs Passenger Processing Fee payments for trips for which customers have canceled their tickets and are issued refunds in the form of travel vouchers, Southwest Airlines argued in a May 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. CBP's move to collect the fees violates the statute's plain terms, which lay out that CBP is entitled to this fee only when a passenger actually travels on a plane from outside the U.S. into the U.S., the complaint said (Southwest Airlines Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00141).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 6 affirmed the Court of International Trade's ruling in a customs spat over tobacco wraps. Submitting an opinionless judgment order, Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes affirmed the trade court's decision to allow the results of a particular customs test into evidence used to weigh the tobacco wraps.