A case challenging an Enforce and Protect Act determination from aluminum extrusion importer Hialeah Aluminum Supply (see 2104300056)]) was consolidated with a similar case from Global Aluminum Distributor (see 2104280049), according to a May 17 order from the Court of International Trade. Both Hialeah and Global Aluminum argue that CBP's process of determining that the exporters evaded antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights and the agency's own regulations.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China, backing the Commerce Department's addition to the scope in its final determinations of language covering Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) chrome-covered wheels. In a pair of opinions, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce had authority to determine the scope of its investigations, and found that the agency "provided adequate explanation" for its decision to include PVD chrome wheels. However, Katzmann did remand the cases due to Commerce's retroactive imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties, instructing the agency to assess the duties from the final scope memo that made the scope changes, and not the date of the preliminary determination.

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corporation along with consolidated plaintiff Husteel Co., Nexteel Co., AJU Besteel and Iljin Steel Corporation, argued against a government motion in the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case until the Federal Circuit rules on a similar question in a separate case. In a May 17 joint opposition brief, the plaintiffs said that the Department of Justice failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the Federal Circuit case, doesn't argue that it would be "irreparably injured" without a stay, and doesn't consider that there is a fair chance the plaintiffs would be injured by the stay.

The Commerce Department failed to properly select respondents for a countervailing duty administrative review and assign an accurate CVD rate to the non-selected respondents, wood flooring exporters Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Jiangsu Keri Wood Co. and Sino-Maple Co. told the Court of International Trade in a May 14 brief supporting their motion for judgment. Commerce used faulty CBP data when picking its mandatory respondents for the case, and as a result incorrectly determined that Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. was one of the two largest exporters of the subject merchandise, leading to its selection as a mandatory respondent and subsequently skewing the all-other respondent rate in the investigation, the brief said.

The government's lawsuit seeking to collect antidumping duties on imports of canned mushrooms from China brought in between 2001 and 2002 suffers from serious legal shortcomings, surety American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) said in a May 14 reply brief in the Court of International Trade. Arguing that the government's claims are precluded under res judicataand stare decisis , barred under the statute of limitations and based on untimely and legally void reliquidations, the surety wants the court to rule on the case and grant it the costs associated with litigation. "It defies logic that bills issued ten (10) years later for the same set of entries should be more recoverable than the bills issued in a far shorter time frame," the surety said.

The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade is considering staying two antidumping cases until a related question has concluded litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in a May 13 letter. In the Federal Circuit, a particular market situation (PMS) finding for certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea is being challenged and could be determined to be directly relevant to exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s cases in CIT (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 19-00086 and # 20-00150). The Department of Justice broached the idea of a stay until the Federal Circuit case, brought by Nexteel Co., is settled in another SeAH challenge of the same Commerce Department determination (see 2105120028). Responses in both SeAH cases to the question of a stay are due by May 17.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Department of Justice defended CBP's classification of five different categories of automobile parts in a May 13 reply brief further supporting its cross-motion for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade. The classification case involves 28 products from Jing Mei Automotive (USA), including: 1) interior trim, 2) door handles, 3) exterior trim, 4) mirror scalps and 5) emblems or wheel trim parts. After agreeing with Jing Mei on the proper classification for two side mirror scalp types and two plastic emblems, DOJ now asserts that the remaining parts under consideration are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 39 while Jing Mei argues for Chapter 87.