Since a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs is virtually identical to its already dismissed action seeking the same thing, it should be dismissed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 24 brief at the Court of International Trade. The new case, brought by the importer, Voestalpine USA, and the purchaser, Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, which challenges the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion, is "legally indistinguishable" from its prior case, and, as such, is moot, the U.S. said (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

CBP is looking into allegations of antidumping duty evasion by importers of glycine from Thailand and has imposed interim measures, the agency said in a recent Enforce and Protect Act notice of investigation. The notice, which is dated Oct. 26 but was posted by CBP Nov. 17, said Nutrawave, Sarille and Newtrend USA transshipped Thai-origin glycine through Indonesia, "falsely declaring the merchandise as a product of Indonesia and not subject to" AD order A-549-837. The allegations were filed by Geo Specialty Chemicals, which is represented by Thompson Hine lawyer David Schwartz.

CBP erred when it found that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, the two companies said in a Nov. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Accused of evading the orders via transshipping the grates through South Korea and also misclassifying the entries, Ikadan and Gaosai said that the evasion finding cuts against CBP's own analysis as to the scope of the orders and represents an improper attempt to retroactively apply AD/CV duties (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592)

A group of gun manufacturers and one gun distributor urged the District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 22 to toss a case against them filed by the Mexican government alleging that they fueled violence in Mexico through firearms sales practices that are illegal. Characterizing the suit as a "clash of national values," the gun manufacturers argued that the Mexican government's case represents a threat to America's constitutional freedoms and should be dismissed for myriad reasons -- chief among them the fact that Mexico does not have standing to sue these companies (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Goods coming from a non-market economy may be denied first sale valuation due to the market-distorting policies of the non-market economy, the Department of Justice said in a Nov. 19 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing the appellate court should uphold a Court of International Trade ruling questioning the use of first sale on goods from NMEs, DOJ pushed back against plaintiff Meyer Corp.'s contention that NME policies cannot be included in "any non-market influences" -- any of which the U.S. can use to deny an importer the use of first sale. Notably, DOJ did not whole-heartedly embrace the notion that goods coming from an NME are immediately disqualified from receiving first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation, U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

That an antidumping review respondent lied in its advertisements about what its goods were made of does not warrant the application of adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 18 decision. Judge Miller Baker said that while the respondent's advertising in the U.S. is a "complete fraud from bark to core," the Commerce Department must derive the company's dumping rate from its actual costs. The judge also held that Commerce does not have the jurisdiction to "police false advertising violations" under its antidumping laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling which tossed a case seeking payment from the U.S. over damages caused from a ship delay in Delaware, holding that the district court could in fact hear the case. The appellate court, in a Nov. 16 decision, said that the court had jurisdiction since the contract between the U.S. and ship owner Nederland Shipping Corporation was a maritime contract and the law giving the U.S. cover for detaining the ship waived sovereign immunity (Nederland Shipping Corporation, et al. v. United States, 3rd Cir. #20-2269).

The Court of International Trade again struck down the Trump administration's withdrawal of an exclusion from the Section 201 solar safeguard measures for bifacial solar panels, in its second opinion rejecting Trump administration's elimination of the exclusion as many days. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion withdrawal was an "arbitrary and capricious agency decision" and represented a move with no statutory authority. Just a day earlier, Katzmann ruled against a presidential proclamation attempting to withdraw the bifacial panel exclusion, which came as a direct response to the CIT's preliminary injunction in the case over the USTR's move.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. may hear an appeal of the key Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States decision, seeing it as an opportunity to discuss the question of the extent to which Congress delegated tariff powers to the president, Julie Mendoza of Morris Manning, counsel to plaintiff-appellee Borusan Mannesmann, told Trade Law Daily. Having recently petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, Mendoza said that having the case sit in front of the nation's highest court will also give her and her team a chance to argue that the most recent decision in the case runs afoul of the intelligible principle standard for delegation of powers to the president as it relates to Section 232.