The Court of International Trade extended to all unassigned cases a preliminary injunction halting the liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 China tariffs for plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the tariffs, CIT said in a July 6 order. Cases challenging the tariffs continue to trickle in to CIT and, pursuant to an April 28 order, are automatically stayed without being assigned to the master litigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett penned the extension order shortly after dissenting from the decision to issue the preliminary injunction (see 2107060077).

The Court of International Trade will stop liquidation of unliquidated entries subject to litigation over List 3 and List 4A Section 301 China tariffs, a CIT panel said in a July 6 opinion (Court No. 21-00052). Granting a preliminary injunction, Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves held that questions over limitations on CIT's ability to reliquidate the entries or grant a monetary judgment mean the Section 301 plaintiffs risk irreparable harm in the absence of one. Chief Judge Mark Barnett dissented, arguing that the court does have the power to reliquidate, and that the resulting lack of irreparable harm weighed against granting the injunction.

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.

Many cases challenging findings of antidumping or countervailing duty evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act include claims that the process has violated an importer's constitutional rights, particularly under the Fifth Amendment. Case after case in the Court of International Trade argues elements of the EAPA process -- from the lack of notice provided to an importer that it's under investigation to the insufficient public summaries of proprietary information in the investigation -- violate importers' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. However, the circumstances under which these claims may actually be heard by CIT may have yet to come, trade lawyers said.

A particular market situation will no longer be part of the dumping margin calculation for oil country tubular goods from Korea after the Commerce Department submitted its remand results to the Court of International Trade on June 30. Commerce dropped the PMS finding after the court said that there was not enough evidence to support the agency's finding that the Korean steel market was heavily subsidized (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).

The Department of Justice said in June 30 oral argument before the Court of International Trade that its positions on the proper jurisdiction for cases challenging either the exclusion or seizure of goods identified as drug paraphernalia are consistent in district courts and CIT. If an import is excluded from entry by CBP, CIT has jurisdiction. If the good is seized, the district court has jurisdiction, it said. DOJ argues that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by Root Sciences since CBP seized a cannabis crude extract recovery machine from the importer rather than excluding it (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

OtterBox can't get refunds on a prior disclosure it made on imports of smartphone covers, even though it prevailed in a Court of International Trade case on entries of the same product, the Department of Justice said in a June 25 reply brief to OtterBox's motion to enforce the court's judgment. DOJ said CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure in dispute, making OtterBox's bid an attempt to get a refund to which it is not entitled (Otter Products, LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00269).

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 Solar Energy Industries Association continued to push back on the government's arguments that President Donald Trump properly considered the domestic industry's views when he removed an exemption to Section 201 tariffs on bifacial solar panels. The revocation of the tariff exemption should be reversed, plaintiffs challenging the president's actions said in a June 25 brief. Responding to a filing from the Department of Justice defending the decision to pull the tariff exemption, plaintiffs, led by the SEIA, further alleged procedural shortcomings in the president's actions (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

The Court of International Trade erred in rejecting aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio's bid to intervene in a case challenging the determination of duty evasion in which Kingtom was the company alleged to be aiding in the evasion, Kingtom said in a June 25 brief requesting the court's reconsideration. Kingtom says that the court overlooked Kingtom's interest in the case and failed to consider that Kingtom shares a legal claim with the plaintiff (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198).