Tapered roller bearing importer Wanxiang America Corporation does not have jurisdiction to challenge guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Sept. 2 decision upholding a ruling from the Court of International Trade. Jurisdiction under the court's residual jurisdiction, Section 1581(i), cannot be claimed by "creative pleading," and proper jurisdiction for Wanxiang America's case could have been claimed elsewhere based on the "true nature of the action," the court said. The Federal Circuit pointed to a CIT's denied protest jurisdiction under Section 1581(a), and antidumping and countervailing duty challenge jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), as potential jurisdictional homes for the action.

The three-judge panel presiding over the Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade appeared during a brief, 27-minute status conference Sept. 1 to be edging closer to resolving the two-month impasse over suspending the liquidation of customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

The Court of International Trade should not stay judgment of its decision rejecting Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum "derivatives" since plaintiffs in a separate but relevant case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have a "significant probability" to succeed, a motion opposing the stay said. Plaintiffs Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products filed their opposition on Aug. 30 after the Justice Department sought the stay once the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S. case, permitting the president to take Section 232 tariff actions beyond procedural deadlines (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).

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.

The Justice Department, in a major Section 301 litigation policy reversal, said Aug. 31 it agreed to stipulate that refunds will be available on liquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure if importers prevail in the massive volume of cases inundating the Court of International Trade to vacate the tariffs. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products responded on Aug. 31 that they're "pleased" with the government's stipulation as something the plaintiffs have advocated for months, but not with DOJ's "bewildering" proposal that importers would still be required to file spreadsheet submissions in a CBP repository.

An extension of the time of service in a penalty action against the owner and director of importer Atria, Kevin Ho, should not be granted, counsel for Ho argued in an Aug. 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, also pushing for the case to be dismissed. The U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint and cannot prove excusable neglect in its service, Ho argued (United States v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).

CBP made a final determination that Amlink Sourcing evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on lightweight thermal paper from China (A-570-920/C-570-921) by misdeclaring subject goods as not covered by any AD/CVD orders and, as a result, failing to pay cash deposits on the merchandise.

CBP's enforcement of forced labor-related withhold release orders is marred by due process violations, an unreasonable standard of evidence, absence of transparency and arbitrary decisions, the American Apparel and Footwear Association said in an Aug. 26 proposed amicus brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Seeking to file the brief in a challenge over CBP's exclusion of Virtus Nutrition's palm oil imports from entry to the U.S. over forced labor allegations, the association's brief more broadly criticizes CBP's forced labor policies (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, saying the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund by way of an extension of liquidation or a protest.

A group of companies requesting an anti-circumvention inquiry related to antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese solar cells can’t keep their identities secret, an importer said in comments to the Commerce Department filed Aug. 24.