The Trump administration’s “radical escalation” of Section 301 tariffs on lists 3 and 4A Chinese goods “transgressed the statutory limits carefully delineated by Congress” when it crafted the 1974 Trade Act and delegated foreign-trade powers to the executive branch, Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products said. This came in a cross-motion for judgment on the agency record filed the evening of Aug. 2 at the Court of International Trade in docket 1:21-cv-52. Akin Gump’s proposed order asks that the lists 3 and 4A tariffs be vacated, that any duties paid be refunded with interest and that the government be “permanently enjoined” from imposing the tariffs again.

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 U.S. requested the chance to take another look at an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to consider documents that were not sent from one CBP office to another, in a July 30 motion for remand in the Court of International Trade. The agency also sought the remand in light of the court's decision in Royal Brush v. United States, in which CIT held that CBP failed to provide adequate public summaries of business confidential information (BCI) (see 2012020050). The plaintiff in the case, Leco Supply, opposed the remand request, arguing that it is "too broad to be justifiable" under the court's standards for allowing remands (Leco Supply, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00136).

The Court of International Trade postponed for two weeks an Aug. 6 deadline for CBP to create the repository through which Section 301 importers can seek to freeze liquidations of customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure under the court's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order. Judge Claire Kelly told a status conference Aug. 2 that the court also is postponing for two weeks the Aug. 6 deadline for plaintiffs and the government to propose modifications to the PI order.

Importers seeking suspended liquidations of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure under the July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order of the Court of International Trade would need to file their requests in a “repository” to be set up in CBP's ACE database and back them up with emails to their appropriate CBP Center of Excellence and Expertise (CEE), say draft DOJ instructions filed with the court Friday in docket 1:21-cv-52. “We have conferred with plaintiffs and understand that they will respond separately with their responses to these draft instructions,” DOJ attorneys said. Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products didn’t immediately comment. Lawyers on the plaintiffs' steering committee may repeat many of the same objections they raised at a July 23 status conference that the government, in complying with the PI order to suspend liquidations, is putting too much onus on importers for CBP's processing of their liquidation-suspension requests.

In one of his first actions as a CIT judge, Chief Judge Mark Barnett was handed a case reassigned from one of the court’s senior judges at the time, Judge R. Kenton Musgrave. The case, involving a duty drawback claim from BP Oil Supply Company, was filed in July 2004 and had languished in the court for years. Lengthy briefing schedules and a million motions to extend later, it had been nearly a decade since the initial complaint had been filed.

The Court of International Trade should remand the Commerce Department's failure to meet its obligation to verify the information of mandatory respondent Shakti Forge Industries in an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India, petitioner Bonney Forge Corporation, along with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, said in a July 22 reply brief. Commerce's use of facts otherwise available doesn't excuse the agency from its duty to verify and leads to "absurd results," Bonney Forge said (Bonney Forge Corporation et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03837).

The Commerce Department's use of Thai surrogate data in two antidumping administrative reviews of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China was not properly supported, the Court of International Trade said in two nearly identical July 28 decisions. Judge Claire Kelly, penning the opinions, sought to bring Commerce's practice in line with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that called unreasonable the agency's “bookend methodology” in selecting the surrogate data. Stopping short of instructing Commerce to cease its use of the Thai data, Kelly found that the agency's rationale was unsupported and remanded the surrogate value selection for further consideration or explanation.

The Commerce Department's use of a simple average to calculate a pooled standard deviation as part of the differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty case was reasonable and permitted under the statute, the U.S. and Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in reply briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to the opening brief filed by the appellants, led by PT Enterprise, both the government and Mid Continent argued that the "academic literature" backed the use of simple averages and that PT's proposed method of weighing the averages cut against the science (Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1747).

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.